The TRUTH about TRANSPARENCY
Peter Weygang has tried to hold the City of Kawartha Lakes accountable to the taxpaying residents for two decades. His persistence, knowledge and arguments are impressive and very reasonable.
Peter’s cause is our cause! Support him!
At age 88, why does Peter still do more that any other CKL resident I know to prevent the City of Kawartha Lakes from contining to grow in size, cost and scope of (excessive) authority? ANSWER: Once you see the abuses of government, it's impossible to un-see them. It becomes like a sore that never heals because the scab is ripped off with yet another abuse before the wound heals.
In a local freedom group which I attend, its members are seeking ways to get the attention of our elected officials to stand up for our rights rather than becoming an “elected rubber stamp” to approve every new initiative that the “deep state” tyrants want in order to increase their taxation and legislative powers.
Peter’s letter below tells the story of futility about the effectiveness of letter writing to our elected officials.
There has to be a better way.
Politics is downstream of culture is a a good place to begin for people to think about getting desired changes. Elections determine who our citizens choose to represent them, and to do so by providing then access to the honey pot defined as the combination of tax revenues and legislation. As Peter’s letter shows below, if our elected officials are not even willing to listen to us (Justin Trudeau’s favourite tactic), then it becomes evident that our electors chose the wrong representatives.
The only politician who deserves to be elected is the one that is 100% determined to work for the citizens to defend and protect us from the kind of excesses and abuses that we suffer from government overreach. In a nutshell, a balance between the the personal responsibility and individual freedom that each citizen is willing and able to undertake WITHOUT government micromanagement (taxes and regulations), and what government can provide on a minimal basis, if what is required to re-establish democracy in Canada.
One friend recently described her dream scenario for future elections. Imagine a provincial election in which a Less Government Independent candidate ran in every one of Ontario’s 124 electoral ridings. If 80 were elected, then the entire Ontario Government could be put under scrutiny to determine which government functions to retain and which could be eliminated. Party politics would be neutered. With the amount of wasteful spending and ‘make work’ positions found in government bureaucracies, the opportunities to “right size” the public sector to a level that puts citizens first and does so cost-effectively are enormous.
PETER’s LETTER (feel his frustration)
Hi Everyone.
This is my latest salvo against the City of Kawartha Lakes. I was enraged that they still continue to sell off our waterfront property, that I hoped could be enjoyed by future generations. However, I do raise some other issues.
Regards,
Peter
Thursday, 30 March 2023
Councillor Dan Joyce. et al.
Thanks for your email.
1) It does not matter whether I send an email to one person, or to a million to whom it is relevant. They all get it, and they should all reply. That is what we pay you for. This is another of the convenient rules made up by the administration. It is designed to give you an excuse for not responding to the concerns of citizens. I sent nine individual letters to the mayor, and councillors. Those letters were sent from Bobcaygeon, via the internal interoffice delivery system. Five were stamped by the staff in Lindsay, and returned to me by Canada Post. The other four were stamped, and returned to the Bobcaygeon office. So much for writing to individual counsellors!
I note that the Bible sends the same message to all people. Therefore, according to your philosophy, it should be ignored. I think not!
2) You imply that all citizens should be scouring the minutes of council to find out what you are up to. Is that what you call transparency? The code of conduct makes clear what should happen.
a) Transparency and Openness in Decision Making
6.1 Members shall:
a) Conduct Council business and their duties in an open and transparent manner so that the public can understand the process and rationale which has been used to reach decisions;
Are you really convinced that people knew, and were happy with, your decision to sell off our waterfront heritage? At the moment I, and thousands more taxpayers, have no knowledge of the rationale for selling those properties. Please supply that information to me, and, in future, include it specifically, and in detail, with the sales notice in the local newspaper. It is not the responsibility of taxpayers to dig around in council minutes to find out if council is up to some devious business. It is YOUR job to make sure that the people know. You have to take on the role of Town Crier, and make sure that the people really hear. That would be transparency.
That is clearly the intent of section 6.1.(b) of the Code of Conduct.
b) Ensure the public has input and receives notice regarding Council’s decision-making processes in accordance with the Procedure By-law; and ….
3) The City has a full time reality manager, and two full time reality clerks. Their salaries, and benefits, must amount to a quarter of a million dollars a year. Note that the employer paid benefits add 28.8% to the base salary.
The Reality department charges a staff time fee of $1500.00 for each shoreline parcel they sell. Now $250,000÷$1500 ≈ 170. The realty department must sell 170 shoreline parcels in order to pay their way as a business. They do not! This department is a net loss to the city. The loss is paid by the taxpayers.
This is a note from the realty department. I can advise that we have been seeing a range (over the last year) of approximately $25,000.00 - $60,000.00 as appraised values for shoreline parcels.
$60,000 is an absurdly low price for a vacant waterfront lot. The open market gives a range from $238,000 for 1/4 acre in Burnt River, to $649,900 for 1 acre. These lots are almost a gift to the adjacent property owners who pay, at most, about one quarter of their open market value.
There is a serious question of equity which needs a resolution by the Ethics Commissioner. Why is OUR property not offered for sale on the open market? Why is the sale restricted to the adjacent property owners? The city has created a special class of citizens with privileges not shared by the rest of us. I would love to buy several water-front lots at $60,00 each.
Eventually our lakes will be ringed by private properties, with no access available to the general public, except a few herding places where the masses can dip a toe in the water. So far I have received no rationale from Council, as required by 6.1(a), as to why that is a desirable objective.
4) I am glad you understand the budget. Perhaps you could take the time to answer the detailed questions I asked. In particular what is wrong with my calculations, which used the budget numbers? Why does the council persist with the 3.0% nonsense, when we are paying 4.5% including the levy? Perhaps you do not understand that levies are real money, just like property taxes, and they come out of the same taxpayers’ pockets. Why is it that the council will not send me the calculations that justify numbers produced by staff? They are numbers that Council accepts without question. I justified my numbers, so why doesn’t staff? Actually, I did not need to, because my numbers were taken directly from your budget. The budget is a spreadsheet that only uses addition, and subtraction. It should be well within the compass of councillors to make a few calculations, check mine, and make some obvious deductions
I presume that you are able to understand the pages of gobbledygook in the budget, and are happy to accept them without criticism. I was a superintendent of education, and associate dean of a teacher’s college. I was appalled by the illiterate ‘writing’, but more so that councillors found it acceptable. No doubt that is why you, and I, have radically different views on the meaning of ‘care’.
5) You argue that our taxes are no higher than other municipalities, and thus, ergo, they are fine. That is an insidious, irrelevant, and totally dishonest argument, that has no validity whatsoever. In effect you are saying that it is alright to be a thief as long as all your friends are also thieves. Bureaucrats are all in the same gang, all making bylaws to entrench each other’s power, and lifestyle. The same is also true for unions.
Educated people, who have some knowledge of history, including the rise of bureaucracy, appreciate that government bureaucracies, at all levels, are the greatest threat there is to democracy. In the last 150 years we have seen a massive increase in the numbers of bureaucrats. Data shows that national, provincial, and municipal debts, have increased, almost lock step, with the increasing size of the bureaucratic staff. That is no surprise since their salaries, and benefits, consume some 60% of the taxes.
I note that our employees, at the federal level, are demanding a 14% salary increase in each of the next three years. What government will have the courage to stop them?
Some councillors will remember the former small municipalities in Victoria County. The vast majority had no debt. They provided all the services we have now. Councillors were approachable, knowledgeable, helpful, and in command of the functionaries they employed.
What amazes me is that the council has no qualms about the non-stop growth in size, and cost, of the staff. Staff is defined clearly in the Code of Conduct.
“Staff” includes anyone employed by the City of Kawartha Lakes including fulltime, part-time, temporary or seasonal Staff, contract Staff, students and volunteers.
The machinations of senior administration to reduce numbers of regular staff, and then replace them with even more contract staff, is devious at best. Yet, again, Council endorses this practice.
It is clear that the council has no idea of how to manage an organization that has access to a bottomless pit of free money, viz. the taxpayers’ pockets. Nor, indeed, does it have any legal power to do so. A raft of skilfully worded bylaws, crafted by the staff, have made council completely redundant, and powerless.
a) In particular councillors must respect the Chief Administrative Officer as the person responsible for the general control and management of the affairs of the City.
A paid employee is the ruler! In a democracy? The appointment of a de facto dictator over us, is a despicable betrayal of the very essence of democracy.
6) I have provided details regarding many other issues. Why is there no quantitative measure of staff efficiency? Why is Council not involved in the hiring procedure? Why did a previous council give the green light to an Internal Review of staff efficiency? The result of this vacuous, inane, process, costing $2 million, was a forgone conclusion. My details regarding the efficiency of the City vis-a-vis a real life corporation have been ignored. A twenty- times difference in efficiency should surely be a concern of Council, but is not.
In closing I must note that the reduction in the number of councillors was a master stroke by staff. There are so few councillors now that staff simply runs over you like a steam roller. There are not enough councillors to form some subcommittees to really look into how the municipality is managed.
I presume that this letter will be either blocked by staff, or end in the garbage. However, I will place it in my file, a real paper one, that is already several inches thick. It will be useful ammunition when the people demand that the city administration be replaced by an AI system; a system that works 24/7, at near zero cost, gets solutions at the speed of light, and gets them right.
It is possible that you will be open to censure for having the temerity to contact a taxpayer. However, I appreciate your courage.
Yours sincerely.
Peter Weygang