Mayoralty Candidate and former/current WL City Staff in same picture (Updated)

Earlier this week - I noted that current Williams Lake Mayor/Mayoralty Candidate Kerry Cook has now established a Facebook page which you can view here.  For the record - this page has received "24 likes" so far.

However - in viewing the page this morning, I noticed the following picture that leaves me a little concerned and reminds me of what occured in 2005 when then-Williams Lake Mayoralty Candidate Deb DeMare included a picture of Alberto DeFeo (former WL CAO) in her campaign brochure:

From left to right: Brad McRae, Lilliana Dragowska, Sue Moxey, Danny Moxey and Kerry Cook

Now - while Mr. McRae and Sue/Danny Moxey have left the City of Williams Lake employ - I'm informed that Ms. Dragowska is currently on "stress leave" but still is in the City's payroll

Please note - In 2005 - the then-Chief Election Officer (Sue Moxey) had sent out a warning to all candidates in that local government election that Williams Lake City Staff do not officially support, in any way, candidates for Mayor or Councillor and that City Staff serve whoever is elected.  This was the result of former Mayoralty candidate Deb DeMare including a picture of the then-City of WL Chief Administrative Officer Alberto DeFeo in her campaign brochure

Given this picture could give the impression that Ms. Dragowska is, in fact, supporting Kerry Cook for Mayor (re-election) and because of what the City was forced to do in similiar circumstances in the 2005 Civic Election - I will be writing to the City of Williams Lake's Chief Election Officer (Cindy Bouchard) requesting that she investigate this matter to see if, in fact, it breaches any local election law or local election practices and to take appropriate action, as she sees fit

I'll let you know when I get an answer from Ms. Bouchard on this matter

My intention is to ensure that City Staff don't get "roped" into the election but to just "sit on the sidelines" and observe while the candidates, like myself, do their thing and I'm sure City Staff look forward to working with whomever is elected on Saturday, November 19th, 2011

SBF

Update - Sept 24/2011 at 5:39pm


I have received an email from the City of WL's Chief Election Officer (C. Bouchard) thanking me for bringing this matter to her attention.  Further - Kerry Cook's campaign team has now pulled the above photo from their "Re-Elect Kerry Cook for Mayor" Facebook page

SBF

Wednesday News Wrap - Sept 14th edition

In 100 Mile House:


* Proposed new community library for Lac La Hache  - see here
* Weekend vandalism in Centennial Park closes trail - see here
*Agriplex Society has successfully obtained its building permit for repairs to the old Stan Halcro Arena - see here
* Opening 15 long-term care at Fishcher Place not a priority for Interior Health - see here
* Letter writer Lee Wood of Burnaby has "interesting" idea on how to revert HST to GST/PST in less than 18 months - see here

In Williams Lake:


* Scott Nelson pitches a "one dollar a year" idea for seniors' & Cariboo Lodge - see the video here and see the response from Bill Reid, a local senior and a member of the Williams Lake and Area Seniors' Advisory Council.  See that here

Finally - Earlier in the week, CBC Daybreak North interviewed Alberto De Feo (CAO - District of Lake Country) regarding the proposed Municipal Auditor-General.  You can listen to it here

In Quesnel:


* The on-going war between Quesnel Mayor Mary Sjostrom and Quesnel Councillor Sushil Thapar continues with the latest salvo being Thapar accusing Sjostrom of putting in for claims for items like "a vehicle windshield", "chocolates", and a "pedicure" and he is demanding that Sjostrom repay City of Quesnel taxpayers' for these items.  Sjostrom, for her part, says "When will it end?".  She also says that these claims of Thapar are "false" as Quesnel City Staff follow strict procedures in order to approve any claim request(s) that come in for approval

Editor's Note - I wonder how much lower Quesnel Council politics can sink??  I will say that, unlike in previous years, Sushil Thapar is really pushing the "limits" on these statements of his and this is "out of character" for him, especially for the period of 2006-spring of 2009, where he didn't usually make these sort of "very hard hitting"comments as he was quite mellow before this...

Small Guys pay more

From Alberto De Feo's blog:

Editor's Note - Alberto DeFeo is a former CAO (Chief Administrative Officer) of Williams Lake and serves as CAO for the District of Lake Country.  He is also an Adjunct Professor with the Political Science Department of the University of Northern British Columbia.  This recent blog of his captures how I feel about the Province's idea of a Municipal Auditor-General.  If you want to leave Mr. DeFeo a comment about his blog post, click here and scroll to the bottom where it says "Leave a Comment" and tell Mr. DeFeo if you agree with him or not...

Read the Canadian Federation of Indepedent Business viewpoint on a Municipal Auditor-General here

The Canadian Federation of Independent Business (CFIB) has been campaigning for the last few years to reduce taxes to businesses from local governments. Every year they come up with a report which skews the facts and spins them in order to provide an ‘unbiased’ view of how businesses are unfairly treated by municipalities and their ability to tax properties.

In addition, this year they were able to bend the ear of the new Premier who, as part of her platform, and I am sure in order to satisfy the business community, promised to create the office of the Municipal Auditor General in order to make municipalities more accountable.

There are a number of issues here: from taxes being too high, to accountability and transparency of local governments; from what the real priorities are, to what is the real agenda; and I can go on.
What saddens me is that, as usual, those who are suffering and are going to suffer are the taxpayers, of which I am one. But there is a limit to both the financial capacity and the patience of the taxpayers.

The reason I am not too pleased with CFIB and the current move about the Municipal Auditor General, is that at the end of the day, the rich will be richer and the poor will be poorer. This is in contrast with the declared platform by Premier Clark, and yet this will be the result.

FACTS:

• Businesses do not pay only property taxes but a number of other taxes, mainly the annual income tax – and so all other taxpayers. Let’s say you pay $10,000 a year in taxes: $9,300 go to the Feds and the Province and only $700 go to your municipality.
• If your municipal tax bill is $3,000, your municipality only gets $1,500 (half of it). The rest goes to other agencies, including the Province for schools (double dipping). In fact, the majority of the other $1,500 goes to the Province.
• Of the $1,500 that go to the municipality, $300 go to Feds for policing, which now leaves the municipality with even less ($1,200).
• Municipalities are mandated/legislated (forced – which is a good thing) to balance their budget. So your per-capita debt with your municipality is a whopping $0.
• Federal and Provincial Governments carry a huge debt because they don’t have to balance their budget. Do you know what is your per-capita ‘exposure’ to that deficit? Well, just your share of the federal debt is $16,500.
• In order to pay that debt back, both federal and provincial governments have continuously reduced funding for local government programs. We have water systems, sewer systems, roads and basic needs that need to be taken care of in the next twenty years as their life span is coming to an end. Where is the money coming from? Or should we just let everything fail and go back in time of a couple of centuries?
• The Province continues to download programs to municipalities, but it keeps the money for itself. Now we have to take care of housing, social programs, some policing programs, and more. I am wondering where the provincial money is going.
• Municipal books are open and independently audited. Anyone can see where the money is spent and how. We have internal and external controls and transparency is our word. Try to get that from a federal or provincial department.

LET’S SEE THE OTHER SIDE OF THE COIN:

Warren Buffet recently commented on the US economic situation and stated that the government has it all wrong. Taxes should be fairly applied across the board. He pays only 17% of his income in taxes compared to the 46% of a school teacher. He is baffled by the fact that rich corporations have to pay less, proportionally, than the average Jane Doe. This is happening in Canada too. Is this what CFIB is trying to achieve?

A recent editorial in the Vancouver Sun recommended that the “bankrupt public sector might look to the private sector for guidance” out of the latest crisis. First of all, municipalities are not bankrupt and cannot be, because of the law, thank goodness. Secondly, and I cite a reader from Burnaby “Is it (the editorial) referring to the same private sector that took hundreds of billions of dollars in bailouts from governments? Or the private sector rating agencies that gave subprime derivatives rock solid ratings before they were found to be worthless? Or could it be referring to how private sector increased executive salaries and bonuses after the bailouts saved them? Thanks, but I don’t think that the solution to getting out of the crisis lies in the private sector. They are the ones who got us into this mess in the first place.”

Listen to this: twenty-five of the 100 highest paid U.S. CEOs earned more last year than their companies paid in federal income tax, a pay study said Wednesday. It also found many of the companies spent more on lobbying than they did on taxes. In a letter to the US Oversight and Government Reform committee’s chairman, Representative Elijah Cummings asked “to examine the extent to which the problems in CEO compensation that led to the economic crisis continue to exist today.” He also asked “why CEO pay and corporate profits are skyrocketing while worker pay stagnates and unemployment remains unacceptably high,” and “the extent to which our tax code may be encouraging these growing disparities.”

Is this what CFIB is aiming to achieve?

THE MUNICIPAL AUDITOR GENERAL

This office, which will cost money to the taxpayers (at least $300,000) is wrapped in mystery. The scope and purpose of its mandate is not defined. It affects local governments but local governments (hence the taxpayers) did not know this was happening until some of the business people, which were given ample opportunity to comment, advised their elected officials that this was going on.

Even then, the province did not do anything to solicit local government feedback until the Union of
BC Municipalities (UBCM) was advised that this was happening and a meeting occurred. Now the province is requesting that local governments provide comments back to the Ministry of Community Development by September 9 in writing and on a survey set by the Ministry. In other words, folks, this is a done deal.

It will make a few business people happy (not all of them, like not all of them liked the HST) but it will make more taxpayers angry. No due process was followed. In fact it was very slanted and one-sided. This new office will create new bureaucracy and new costs that we will have to pay. I am not sure who wins at the end of the day.

Not the taxpayers.

Letter to BC Premier C. Clark/Minister Ida Chong on Municipal Auditor-General

Today, I wrote BC Premier Christy Clark and Community, Sport and Cultural Development Minister Ida Chong on the policy idea of a Municipal Auditor-General.  See below for the letter:

I am writing to you on the proposed establishment of a municipal Auditor-General for the roughly 180+ municipal/regional district governments in the Province of British Columbia

For someone who has actively watched local governments in the Cariboo-Chilcotin since 2001, the primary reason as to why a municipal Auditor-General is being proposed and, in my humble opinion, thrust onto local governments relates to the public perception about local government spending, especially as it relates to those local governments in Metro Vancouver where a big chunk of the increase in spending either relates to decisions made by local municipal governments or as it relates to union contracts, again decisions made at the local level

Secondly – I’ve reviewed the distributed survey to all UBCM members on a Municipal Auditor-General. To be perfectly frank – I find the language very leading, which leads me to believe Victoria has already decided to have a Municipal Auditor-General, regardless of how local governments respond to the survey. I find this development stunning, just after going through the very public exercise over the Harmonized Sales Tax debacle

Thirdly – I categorically reject the assertion that small local governments (ie: Villages, Districts) need the position of a Municipal Auditor-General, in order to conduct “value for money” audits. If a village or district, in addition to other local governments, want to do a “value for money” audit in addition to a special audit (outside of the usual auditing of Financial Statements), then a local government can choose to do so. Victoria should not dictate this to local governments, especially after Victoria enacted the Community Charter in 2004 with Section 1 of the Charter stipulating as follows:

1 (1) Municipalities and their councils are recognized as an order of government within their jurisdiction that

(a) is democratically elected, autonomous, responsible and accountable,
(b) is established and continued by the will of the residents of their communities, and
(c) provides for the municipal purposes of their communities.

Fourthly – By the actions of Victoria on a Municipal Auditor General – announce first, then consult with the UBCM breaks previous practice and doesn’t build a consultative relationship between the Union of BC Municipalities and Victoria, as was present during the building of the Community Charter. Saying that Premier Clark announced this during the recent BC Liberal Party Leadership race and local government officials should have paid attention does not, in itself, constitute consultation with UBCM and local governments

In conclusion - The provincial government would do well to kill this proposal as it does nothing to solve the issue of municipal spending. If Victoria decided not to get directly involved in the issue of industrial taxation issues, then Victoria should be prepared to do the same on general municipal spending, which in my opinion, is directly tied to the proposal for a Municipal Auditor-General, but will only add to the bureaucracy. In fact – there is no information, at present, as to who will pay for this position. Will local governments have to pay for this post or will provincial taxpayers have to pay for another bureaucrat?

I strongly encourage you to repeal this policy idea and allow the debate of spending by local governments to take place at a local level, as it should and will take place in our local communities, especially with civic elections coming up in November

Should you wish to discuss this letter further – I can be contacted in the following ways:
Phone – 250-267-6725
Email: sforseth000@hotmail.com

Respectfully yours,

Steve Forseth
Williams Lake, BC

CC: Alberto DeFeo, CAO – District of Lake Country (via email)
       Al Richmond, Chair – Cariboo Regional District (via email)
      Mary Sjostrom, Mayor – City of Quesnel (via email)
      Donna Barnett, MLA – Cariboo-Chilcotin (via email)