17 replies to this topic

[EllenGruenbaum]

I was at the Saanich Peninsula Chamber of Commerce debates on November 3rd,,, all of the candidates were talking about transparency and how important it is when the last speaker, James McNulty stood up and let the crowd know that 3 of the people running for council are on the board of the rate payers association. An association that sued the municipality because they didn't like the way a democratically elected new council had voted! I looked up the numbers and Sue Stroud, Ryan Windsor, Chris Graham and the rest of the ratepayers association has cost the municipality over $100,00!!! $48,795.19 to defend the first lawsuit, and another $57,804.21 to defend the Ratepayers second case in the Court of Appeals!!!
Ryan Windsor is either flat out lying or just ignorant when he and others say anything else.

The fact is the municipality only expects to recover roughly $18,000 of the total cost of $106,000 (as per municipal clerk Susan Brown). McNulty pointed out that none this information is anywhere on their personal websites, and he asked them to explain why that is. The only one who answered was Stroud who said, "we did what we had to do". The sheer arrogance of that statement! They blatantly ignored the will of the community as expressed in a democratic election! Do we seriously want these people in council?! It was interesting listening to hypocrites talk all evening about transparency and then finally get called out on it. I'm glad to see that people are starting to hear more about what the ratepayers association has done to our community.

[kenjh]

thank you ..we need to learn this sort of thing's and for me this is one of the few ways to understand what is going on ..

[EllenGruenbaum]

Your welcome. I wish I hadn't had to do it.
It seems crazy to me that these candidates think they can get away with this sort of behaviour. They are quite literally some of the last people we should have in a position of authority.

I was just looking over my post and I caught a typo (other than the title)

I missed a zero-- "Sue Stroud, Ryan Windsor, Chris Graham and the rest of the ratepayers association has cost the municipality over $100,000!!!)

[Schnook]

Your facts are as scrambled as the smear letter that appeared in my mailbox today.

WHO ARE YOU? Do you or does someone close to you have a personal stake in the Senanus devleopment and the apparent smear represented by the scummy letter that appeared in my mailbox today?

Relevant discussion appeared earlier today under Wayne Spencer's thread.

CLICK HERE

To be clear, this has nothing to do with Mr. Spencer, who has run a perfectly respectable campaign. I'd much sooner vote for him than any candidate who turns out to have been responsible for this tripe!

[rjag]

I got a copy in my mailbox at work....pretty poor taste and tacky. If I was voting in CS i'd make a point of not voting for the proposed candidates as this is infantile and a smear campaign...take the high road, if you are going to publish something like this then identify yourselves.....

[EllenGruenbaum]

If my facts are scrambled I would suggest explaining exactly how so rather than redirecting me to some link.

What exactly is it that I got wrong? And by the way, I cited my sources regarding where I got my numbers, so I'm not particularly interested in you just announcing that I am wrong.

Facts speak louder than words, I am happy to present mine.

[Schnook]

Okay then, for starters, WHO ARE YOU and what is the nature of your involvement in the Senanus debacle?

[EllenGruenbaum]

If you don't have anything constructive to say, or any facts to respond with then why are you posting? I think it's pretty telling that instead of explaining where I was mistaken and providing EVIDENCE you have decided to try and personally attack me and get into some childish battle of credentials.

The truth is the truth shnooky, if you have something to add, then add it, otherwise just grow up.

[Ryan Smith]

I agree with Ellen there Schnook. What about her post had incorrect facts? I saw the exact same information come from a Central Saanich municipal staff member. Just because you don't like the facts showing the level of incompetence in your favored candidates doesn't make those facts wrong. However, it doesn't at all surprise me that you would take that approach to thinking as this is what all the ratepayers supported candidates do - if they don't like it, it must be wrong. It is that childish mentality that got this municipality in such a mess. They didn't like the legal response to Vantreights nor Senanus, therefore it must be wrong, then they aunch legal suits that cost $100,000 in taxpayer dollars to defend what the muncipality and council had right all along. These people waste valuable taxpayer money!

Here is some other information on legal costs that I saw come from the municipal hall. These are the annual legal fees incurred by the municality - why the sharp increase in 2009, 2010 and 2011? Is it a co-incidence that the timing lines up with the RRoCSS taking on frivilous legal challenges of the municipality? Say what you want Schnook, but the facts speak far louder than what you want to see.

2008 $108,068

2009 $185,540

2010 $296,125

2011 (YTD) $202,641

[Schnook]

You're right. 'Selective' is admittedly more precise than 'scrambled.' There is no context. It seems to me as someone who is learning about this garbage after the fact that any actions of RROCSS were a RESPONSE to something that was initiated by the group that sponsored today's smear letter. I wonder how much of the monies blown on the entire Senanus mess could be attributed directly or indirectly to the activities of that group.

This discussion is pointless. The sordid play-by-play should have been included in today's snailmail smear, but instead, residents of Central Saanich were treated to tasteless fluff. It will be interesting to see what happens next.

[EllenGruenbaum]

If Sue Stroud, Ryan Windsor and Chris Graham had been forthright about their involvement you would be right. The fact is they have been completely disingenuous regarding their involvement, altering their web-pages, hiding information etc. Lying by omission is still lying, and Stroud, Windsor and Graham are now lying about what their actions against Central Saanich have cost our community.

It's galling to listen to people wax philosophical about the duty of government officials to maintain transparency in their dealings, while all the while they are just lying through their teeth.
The only one who was clear about his involvement was Zeb, and although I strongly disagree that a person who is part of a group that sued because they lost a vote should be running for council (it shows a lack of respect for the democratic process), I respect him for being upfront about his involvement. Maybe the rest of the ratepayers gang could learn a little something from him?

[rjag]

edited see below

[rjag]

Lying by omission is still lying

It's galling to listen to people wax philosophical about the duty of government officials to maintain transparency in their dealings, while all the while they are just lying through their teeth.

Isnt this the pot calling the kettle black?

The fact they didnt identify themselves is not "transparent"

if this letter had any teeth and validity then the author(s) would identify themselves.....however they didnt, they hide behind a pseudo name so if anything they have probably pissed off a lot of folks by the sheer tackiness of it.

So I ask again, identify themselves if they are so confident in their stated position!

[EllenGruenbaum]

It's incredible that you want to persist in a game of credentials. If what I've said is in anyway inaccurate, then correct me, but do it with facts, not feelings.
I can site my sources and show you the numbers, if I was a talking donkey it wouldn't be one bit less true.

[rjag]

It's incredible that you want to persist in a game of credentials. If what I've said is in anyway inaccurate, then correct me, but do it with facts, not feelings.
I can site my sources and show you the numbers, if I was a talking donkey it wouldn't be one bit less true.

When I receive a letter in the mail such as this, the fact that it is unsigned suggests to me that the source is less than genuine. If the author(s) wish to 'expose' a group and sling their names around then they should identify themselves in order to give their claims any type of credibility otherwise its junk.

I have no love for RROCS but I do not appreciate letters placed in my mailbox making these statements by anonymous individuals.

[EllenGruenbaum]

You might feel one thing is more or less genuine than another, I might feel the same way.
But what I KNOW is that if you speak with the municipal clerk Susan Brown she will confirm the fact that municipality only expects to recover roughly $18,000 of the total cost of $106,000 brought on by the ratepayers frivolous lawsuit.
How I feel about that is a totally separate matter. How I feel about the fact that Stroud and Windsor obfuscated their involvement and are now dissembling about the actual dollar figure is also a separate matter.
If you're wondering, I think it's reprehensible. If you want to talk about that, then we can talk about feelings.

However, if you want to discuss how much money Stroud and Windsor have cost us, feelings are not in any way important.

I agree with you, I think that flyer was a disgusting piece of trash and I am absolutely SHOCKED, that Carl Jensen would be involved with that sort of garbage. However, facts are facts and feelings are feelings. Let's be clear about which one we are discussing.

[kenjh]

I learn more here then the news ..on both sides...

[Schnook]

A similar smear appears on p. A6 in today's Peninsula News Review.

Somebody has a chip on their shoulder, and dumping on the whole municipality puts a cloud over the election. Candidates who want to avoid guilt by association will feel an obligation to find out who is behind it and deal with it pronto before it escalates.