RM Pecuniary Interests

[oneoff]

"I am left to conclude that the council blindly (no cost-benefit analysis, no mandate, no due diligence) pursued the Wascana Village Development for the simple sake of development" Queen's Bench Justice Ron Barclay.

Eberle claimed he recused himself from any RM decisions involving Wascana Village, but Barclay said his behaviour was "highly unethical" promoting the project behind the scenes.

[oneoff]

And this response from the Sask Government web site from "Government Relations" department.

"During a time of economic growth and development, municipalities must be transparent, accountable and maintain the highest standards of integrity."

[freewheat]

So destroying evidence and altering minutes? Doesn't look good, huh?

What about the other counselors? I imagine they are concerned about an investigation. Every counselor in that rm has VERY valuable land in the first place, and ANY development is in their best interest in terms of land valuation I would imagine.

Wouldn't wish to be them right now...

[oldjim]

This isn't the first time Sherwood council has been involved in controversy, albeit probably 20 years ago or so. Proximity to the city, perhaps?

[grrrr]

Job opening for you Oneoff.

[farmaholic]

"Wealthy" "Rural" municipality.

Robin Hood of Sherwood stealing from the rich Urban Municipality and...

[oneoff]

Who in their right mind would want to be involved with potential enablers who still only admit that maybe only minor mistakes were made in the RM of Sherwood?

Anyone call promoting tens of millions of personal benefits from developer's cuts; a condo and residential lots and having council minutes altererd as just minor mistakes. Even ensuring the familiy name gets remembered in the new Village. Oh my God; is this what is the new norm and not recognized by council members as reprehensible.

Anyone who still believes that District plans and Official Community plans and Statements of Provincial Interest Regulations legislation isn't all but etched in stone is pretty naive.

This is what brought the RM Sherwood corruption to light and it remains to be seen if the "County system" in Rural Municipal reform wouldn't have been a more palatable form of necessary change.

In the meantime; we are dealt the hand of Establishment of Joint/District Planning areas; and all this is comming to the rest of your areas. SOON. There is a carrot and there is also a threat of not being at the top of the list for grants.

It certainly isn't what you first expect. First should come the Estabishment of a Planning area bylaw; then Appointment of Board Commissioners (with one of three members meant to be "AT LARGE" (lots of luck on that one); then grassroots input through a professionl planner and Board egagement of electorate; stakeholders and community (again lots of luck even getting anyone to know about process); then new zoning bylaws and future land use identification; and drafting the required proposed bylaws with the ultimate acceptable approval by the provincial minister necessary.

Then the bigger part of a work week for public hearings and maybe the realization that no one has thought out the process; let alone read the near ream of paper of inaccurate assumptions; documentation of dubious credibility and promise of wholesale changes made without any basis (no council motion; bylaw in place or Municipal Act authority.

In some cases the process is so far off track; that it is evident things will not fly; and wholesale changes are developed that require readvertising and extending the intended approval process (ie. new rounds of public hearings etc)
It can be; and is designed to overwhelm; and completely snow a public that by and large has zero experience in how Rural or Urban municipalities are meant to be governed. Let alone scutinizing the wholesale changes that are being contemplated in zoning bylaws; development permits; land use; oversight by agencies and a public who has taken new interest in what was erroneously thought of as personal property rights.

It can be (and likely is) guided by those who give first readings to a ream of papers without ever having read it in entirety; never attended any meeting of the joint partners and have no idea of what conflicts they are creating; let alone the intended outcome of what they are creating.

The end result can be that the common answer to every question is "I don't know"; but I will check with the plnnner or so and so in such and such a department.

Well that is how not to run a democracy; putting the final decision in the hands of one contact person that speaks for all intents and purposes for that branch of special interest. We now have those 15 or so departments; each with their own 25 year plan; and all local governments are doing is swallowing hook line and sinker; some 17 page plan that a higher levels of government put into legislation under the "Statements of Provincial Interest regulations 2012".

It shouldn't fly without careful scutiny; and only to the extent that will be tolerated under the headings of practicality; sustainability and common sense.

[oneoff]

What should be done when its over three years of developing a District plan (and Official Community Plan of one partner) when one party hasn't yet appointed their three Board Commissioners.

Further the reeve and also the mayor escapes any of the three Public Meetings; the councillors and council members don't see the significance of attending the other joint members Public meeetings for bylaw input.

And no council meetings or committee meetings could possibly have been held to gain authority to act on promises publically made on gutting the professional planners "mistakes" in "Future land use planning Maps" or any of the other base overlay maps upon which the plan was based.

There are other words for poorly conceived documents. And the tens of thousands of already sunken costs; all pale when compared to what those bound copies (already distributed at the very last moments) before the public meetings.......and then the bombshell that key maps were "mistakes" and just to ignore everything because everything existing will be grandfathered; and basically everything else will go back to what it is currently zoned for; and its current use.

Except "Highway Commercial" that extends for 25 plus miles of frontage and ignoring the District plans statement that all such development will be directed to the town (except for anhydrous ammonia facilities and bulk fuel depots).

I don't understand how that can possibly be considered a workable plan. Neither how any minister could consider that any real change has been made from the status quo.

[oneoff]

http://static1.squarespace.com/static/524ae855e4b0c336b3180101/t/54b3f868e4b0c10816707a0d/1421080680060/2015-1-12 RM of Sherwood News Release_Inquiry.pdf

That's the link to the RM Sherwood web site; and their response to the preview of the document that today got the reeve removed.

Apparently the council analysis of the same document that was today publically released ....was read in a different frame of mind; than anyone else's conclusion could possibly come to.


These are symptoms of the utter failure of democracy and supposed understanding of percuniary interests and conflicts of interest.

It is to be hoped that any other violators of pecuniary interest; secret deals and lack of accountability can finally be seen for what they are; and how this type of behavior must be routed out.

No other way to spin it; and no matter how high paid a legal opinion; it can still only be seen as an absurd perversion of truth.

[oneoff]

Silence is golden

The necessary first realization is that there might indeed be a problem.

At least the provincial government saw that as "early" as 2012.......it's just they are only working at educating at SARM and SUMA levels. Wouldn't want to bother to alarm the voters eh.


and the ones affected ( ie. the ones being saddled with what has been determined is best for them ) are basically unaware of how this is coming DOWN.

e