These questions have been submitted to the Cranbrook Guardian in the hopes those posting would receive some answers from incumbant candidates or new candidates at either a forum or through this blog. Some questions and concerns were addressed over the last few weeks but many have not been. We will go through the questions with our observations. We obviously cannot answer the questions only give some insight where appropriate.
"The Canadian Heart and Stroke Foundation has given the BC Interior an 'F' grade for air quality, due to unacceptable levels of fine particulate matter (PM2.5). Three major sources of PM2.5 are residential wood burning, prescribed forestry burns and windblown dusts, all prevalent in the Cranbrook area and known to cause or exacerbate respiratory and cardiac issues.
If you agree that the quality of air we breathe is critically important to the health of citizens, how would you respond to these sources of increasing pollution within our city and district?"
Steve Williams
From CLCS
The Ministry of the Environment now has in its hands a study undertaken by a voluntary group of people under the supervision of the Ministry of the Environment. With the resulting hard statistics from both Kimberley and Cranbrook it is hoped both education about wood burning and the wood stove exchange program will continue especially in those areas considered to be the largest offenders. For the results of the study and for more information contact Erna Schill of Wildsight or Paul Willis at the Ministry of the Environment.
Would you support holding all contractors that tie into water and sewer responsible for the damage done to the roads etcetera for a period of 4 or 5 years? I live on a road that has been ruined by improper back filling and no proper compacting after tie ins. Everyone on the block has to endure pot holes and frost heaves most likely for ever because of a lack of enforcement of proper practices. Dave Haine.
We did not hear an answer to this.
Q. As a councillor, what would you do differently from the current Council?
A common answer from non incumbants was to communicate much better.
Q. Do you believe in seconding a councillor's motion for the purposes of discussion?
This question was discussed at length on this blog. http://livablecranbrook.blogspot.com/2011/11/for-want-of-seconder.html
On Wednesday evening at the labour Council Forum, Councillor Wavrecan made this statement.
" Council does not operate in a vacuum. We are not, people seem to think that when they see all Council raise their hands in support, that this is not democracy. Quite often what has happened is that we received our packages a week early. We know an issue is coming up and we have researched it to death. Arm-wrestled, argued, had coffees to talk about what has taken place. At the end of the day, the number one important thing is that the number one important thing is that whether you agree with the decision of Council or not, whether you area a Mayor or Councillor, you do everything you possibly can to make sure that that decision works to the best benefit of this community . . . "
We confirmed that his has not been the experience of all councillors.
Q. Would you vote to give yourself a pay raise?
We were not able to talk to all candidates about this but Sharon Cross and Bob Whetham said no. David Humphrey is not in favour either but said he would follow protocol with a council debate.
Q. How much money did the City spend litigating the out-of-compliance sewer system for 10 years? And should the taxpayers ever be told of this cost?
No incumbant candidate had an answer to this when asked at the forum
Q. CPR filed a lawsuit against the City in BC Supreme Court July 17, 2007 over damage to its tracks caused by sewer overflow. What is the status of this court case?
Not answered.
Q. On a major issue, do you favour using the Alternative Approval Process, or would you take the matter directly to the voters in a referendum?
This was addressed to some extent at the forums. Wayne Stetski has made referendums part of his platform but he made it clear it would be for priorising major expenditures when a choice needed to be made for example infrastructure upgrades. For a better answer look at his webpage at: http://www.stetski.com/
Q. In the Alternative Approval Process, should the City spend money against its own citizens who are collecting signatures in order to get a referendum?
Not answered.
Q. During a referendum, should the City spend taxpayers' money on one side of the issue, or should the City be neutral?
Not answered.
Q. What year do you think Cranbrook Council should put an overpass on the planning table?
Wayne Stetski spoke of making this a priority. Councillor Wavrecan has spoken of it many times over the years.
Q. What year should a bypass be put into the planning envelope?
Not spoken of.
Q. Cranbrook's voter turnout at 30% is the lowest in the East Kootenay. What will you do to address this democratic deficit?
All candidates had a variety of answers for this topic and all wanted to improve this deficit.
William G. Hills
If a person is on sick leave from one job, should that enable him to apply for another job? I ask because I am told Councillor Wavrecan is actually not actively working for the school district although he led people to believe that he was when he said his job was supervising buses or something like that. I would like him to explain this because that doesn’t seem right especially if he is being paid
Don
We did confirm that Councillor Wavrecan has been on paid disability for several years.
Concern
As I understand Roberts Rules of Order to run a meeting democratically, a motion is presented by someone, then seconded by another before any discussion on the motion can take place. After discussion, the chair person of the meeting calls for the question and a vote is taken on the motion. If a proposal is to be discussed, it requires someone to make the motion and another participant to second it. Only then can it be discussed. The person seconding the motion need not agree with the motion but a member of the meeting must second it to permit discussion. Only after the chair person has allowed sufficient discussion which should explain reasons for and against the proposal can the chair call for the question and votes cast for or against the proposed motion by those participating. The persons presenting and seconding a motion are not bound to vote for the proposal after hearing the discussion and debate. However, this system allows for orderly, civil, respectful debate to take place. Opinions can be presented, debated and then votes decide the outcome.
In September 2009, a month after 3000+ Cranbrook citizens asked for the chance to express their views on the City's proposal to increase the size of our City by 150% with the proposed East Hill Boundary expansion, Councillor Whetham made a motion to defer the date for a referendum to the spring of 2010. As I heard and understood his rational, emotions were high and having some time to cool down and engage the public in consultations and information sessions before the referendum would be a worthy option for consideration.
Coucillor Whetham made a motion that the date of the referendum be scheduled for spring 2010. Not Mayor Manjak, Councillors Davis, Pallesen, Schatschneider, Scott or Wavrecan would second Councillor Whetham's motion to allow for discussion. As a result, Councillor Whetham did not have the opportunity to even present his suggestions to Council.
My question to Councillors Davis, Pallesen, Scott and Wavrecan is, "Why did you not second this motion by Councillor Whetham which would have allowed him to bring his viewpoint to the Council table?"
A supplementary question to the same councillors is, "Why did you support the spending of $20,000 City money for advertising the Yes side of the referendum question?
My name is Gerry Sobie and I would welcome and appreciate answers to my questions.
We have explored this question above.
Ball Parks and more Ball Parks, Soccer Fields and more Soccer Fields, Bike Park, Skateboard Park. I’m over 70 and I don’t play soccer or ball or ride a bike or skateboard. What about a dog park for me and my best friend? I’ve paid taxes longer than any of you.
Buttons and me.
Not addressed
I am concerned about how our future council will now deal with the inevitability of water meters. This referendum seems designed to prevent borrowing for installation so how would the candidates propose going about this future necessity? I would like to pay only for the water I use, not that which is leaked out of aging infrastructure, others extravagant hot tub drainage and refilling, driveway washing or irrigation which comes on regardless of wet weather. I would like a water meter. If I pay for it myself will this future council install one for me?
Anonymous
The topic of water meters was addressed at length at all forums.
Two questions for candidates to ponder:
The current sitting Council recommended a City expansion (aka, the "East Hills"). Enough citizens, via petition, asked for a referendum. The referendum passed. What is your position on how the City handled this expansion proposal? How do the referendum results guide your decision-making on current or future development proposals?
This issue was discussed at several forums but we did not hear a direct response to this enquiry.
Can you think of an example where you have supported a position contrary to staff recommendations or perceived public opinion? What are the criteria that a Councillor has to consider when casting a vote against staff or public positions?
We did not hear this question asked but it is addressed to some degree in the post ‘For Want of a Seconder'
No comments:
Post a Comment