The board is going to retain a person qualified to assist the Admin with the negotiations now that UBID employees have joined a union. Too bad they didn’t keep the professional negotiator the Molstad board retained to negotiate a water agreement with Kensington Island Properties. The pro KIP trustees decided they had the qualifications to negotiate a water agreement even though none of them had any experience. They negotiated down – how was that a win?
Have to give Hein credit. He attempts to provide answers and went into detail as to why the Admin is teaching at NIC. Well, we know who gave a contract that allows flex time to an individual who was not qualified for the position and is learning one mistake at a time.
Apparently, the Admin has taken a course on the FOIPP Act. I will be submitting mine again which was completely ignored a year ago. This Admin was hired almost 3 years ago and has just recently completed the FOIPPA course, so all the FOIPPA requests were being handled on a ‘guessing’ policy which included ridiculous costs from $1200. to a whopping $2900.! So, how did the Admin arrive at those costs if he was ignorant of the FOIPP Act?
Was told the Public Works truck that was causing problems was fixed under warranty. Have been waiting a year to find out. Trustee Kaljur brought up the fact the truck was still under warranty when the previous board was talking about replacing it.
Took this screenshot Dec. 15, 11:40 a.m. Same info with the same map showing Seattle causing the hissy fit. Ya, it’s our fault…
If you’re going to whine and cry about people posting the information on your website – correct it. Geezuz. It’s still the same incorrect information. It’s WordPress, just like this blog and Paul’s – we can correct mistakes on our blogs – how come he can’t fix something as simple as the calendar when there is so little on there in the first place?
https://danielarbour.ca/contact/ Received forwarded emails from Paul showing Arbour upset about the posts on his blog and a mention of mine claiming he was going to Seattle along with a map of KIP’s lawyers office location. Arbour wants an apology because he claims due diligence wasn’t done such as “You could have contacted me. You could have checked to see if Union Bay Estates has lawyers there. You could have contacted our EA Teresa. Any of the above would be minimal due diligence.” So, anything that’s posted on his website and calendar should be confirmed by the means suggested?
Here’s a suggestion. Your website is useless – pretty pictures and Facebook posting crap is not information. It offers nothing to the landowners you represent and obviously the skimpy amount of info on it can’t be trusted.
You owe the apology for the wrong info, and getting hissy about landowners relying on that info is pretty thin skinned.
Apparently, Arbour https://danielarbour.ca/contact/ can travel out of the country to receive an update on Union Bay Estates, but couldn’t be bothered to rent a room at the hall to meet with the landowners he represents. The only thing he could manage was a meeting at the market – how backwards and cowardly. Somehow he managed to meet with Fanny Bay residents at the OAP Hall and at the Royston Hall. How many people can fit into the market?
So Arbour is getting wooed by old slick. Guess slick sees the writing on the wall that his buddies on UBID are losing control and the dysfunctional form of government is not working for the landowners.
This trip is bs. It isn’t going to benefit anyone living in Union Bay and shows Arbour can be influenced and wined and dined by this sleazy developer, in my opinion.
Why would Arbour have to physically attend KIP’s lawyers office in Seattle for an update on a supposedly Canadian company project 15 km away?
Isn’t Arbour a pretty green Director?
What is his background that he will grasp what is presented?
What does he expect to learn from this trip that he couldn’t have learned right here where the project is and the VP of KIP?
Doesn’t our existing technology remove the need to physically attend in another country for an update?
Will KIP pull the old “you can view – but cannot have a copy”?
It has been literally months since landowners questions were allowed at the board meetings – not that you will actually get an honest answer. Let’s hope mrknowitall doesn’t have another hissy fit calling for the video camera to be turned off because “we’re gonna get sued” when he doesn’t like the questions and facts.
If you listened to the audio of the meeting yesterday, you heard that the billing is NOT going to quarterly as it is supposedly not financially beneficial. It is to remain bi monthly. Am I the only one who thinks the water bills don’t make any sense? For months I had a $13.00 credit, but the new bill shows a payment Sept. 2019 of -75.00 with a balance forward as of Oct. 31, 2019 of -438.00. Current Levy 75.00 Account Balance $ -363.00.
Bill only shows Previous Reading and Current Reading. The old billing system showed the consumption from the previous 12 months. How is it that we paid big bucks for this software only to have it provide less information and be confusing at the same time?
Did the individuals who were trained on this new software learn the ‘preferences’ the software offers the user? I find it hard to believe this expensive software came without bells and whistles as options in the billing to landowners. Anyone getting new software checks out the preferences to see exactly what the program can do. We are paying top dollar for bargain basement service.
Sorry, I was a few minutes late to the meeting and missed newly elected Trustee Ian Munro’s swearing in.
NOTE: Chair Vandenberg confirmed there will be a board meeting Dec. 19, 2019, and will allow questions from landowners.
Regarding the conversion study, there is to be a member of UBID Board of Trustees on the advisory/study group and thankfully, we will have Ian Munro representing UBID instead of mrknowitall who wanted the position. Let’s get this done and join the CVRD – if only because this form of government is antiquated/outdated and ripe for corruption.
You really have to wonder if some of these characters actually remember what they have stated previously. Remember when mrknowitall put forth a motion in Jan. 2018 basically killing the motion passed at the Nov. 2017 meeting to write a letter to the CVRD regarding the pros and cons of conversion? Check the minutes from the Jan. 2018 meeting showing the coordination that obviously took place before the meeting by the admin and a trustee.
From the Nov. 2017 meeting minutes (entire 17 minute discussion erased supposedly by accident) showing Kaljur’s motion and that it passed. Listen to the reasons why mrknowitall doesn’t want the letter sent.
Here’s how they screwed with a board decision a couple didn’t like and figured out a way to screw us. The admin failed to audio or video record the entire January 2018 meeting.
Today we are expected to swallow the new bs which is that the admin shouldn’t have anything to do with the conversion study as now it’s claimed it is a conflict of interest. Another stupid statement just like the one about it being a conflict if someone runs for Trustee and then wants to know the pros and cons of conversion. Just like stating that no matter how many people show up in Union Bay, UBID must provide water – complete bs. Just like the actions taken to try to extend the expired 2011 WIA in Nov. 2016, stating it was a legal document. Just like the ridiculous statement about UBID claiming copyright over their video recorded meetings – absolute bs. There’s lots more but those are off the top of my head.
Now mrknowitall believes it’s the board who should be in control. More bs about how busy the admin is and how much more work the conversion study would take. It’s pretty obvious there are characters who do not want this study to be successful. First, the admin was going to do the study ‘when he had time’ and now the admin shouldn’t have anything to do with it because it’s a conflict. Brainless.
The letter mentioned in the agenda is another grasp at Municipality status. The board is sending a letter to Selena Robinson confirming the actions taken to date BUT they have added a stipulation that if the conversion to the CVRD fails at a referendum, they want a study into municipality/incorporation. When did ‘no’ stop being ‘no’?