From the perspective of a ratepayer observing Council’s discussions regarding the importance of due diligence, following required legislation, and spending ratepayers’ money carefully, I had the assumption that my concerns regarding payment to a former Councillor without investigation would be taken seriously and all ratepayers are treated equally. Apparently, Council does not understand what their roles and responsibilities are even though they took the course.
Lesson #1 What Council says and wants the public to believe are not reflected in their actions.
October 27/2020 I witnessed Councillor Rudy Thompson on his last day of council term make a motion to pay former Councillor Andy Kuderewko, who was guilty of conflict of interest and legally removed from Council in 2019. Mr. Kuderewko was claiming $1929.23, including interest, from remuneration owing from 2018. April 8, 2019 Councillors Rudy Thompson, Marilyn Labatte, Ken Swanston, Garry Dixon were involved in Resolution 160/19, where the purpose was to rectify remuneration owing for the period May-October 2018, payment had previously been made for January-June 2018 period, according to accounts paid. October 27, 2020 Councillors Thompson, Labatte, and Swanston, with the exception of Councillor Dixon, voted to pay him again with interest, Resolution 2020/0583.
Lesson #2 Council does not have to do their due diligence, abide by the Council Members Code of Ethics Bylaw or Conflict of Interest sections of the Municipalities Act when they choose not to.
Many attempts were made to have my concerns acknowledged, but it was to no avail. I was refused to speak as a delegation because it would contravene a Bylaw where only two delegations are allowed at a meeting. As it turned out, only one delegation presented at this Zoom meeting, so in fact, allowing me to speak would not have contravened this Bylaw. Nevertheless, Council voted not to allow my presentation. April 8, 2019 Councillors Thompson, Labatte, Swanston, and Dixon allowed Bob Schmidt ratepayer (not yet Reeve) to be the 5th delegation on that day.
Lesson #3 Council chooses when bylaws can be broken and who is allowed to break them. November 10, 2020, a motion to rescind Resolution 2020/0583 to pay Kuderewko was on the agenda. It was defeated. Resolution 2020/0645, that came out of a closed session at the end of the meeting, was also defeated to collect $3393.15 from A. Kuderewko on file QB-918/2017. October 27, the day the motion was made to make a payment without investigation, I emailed all Councillors and Administrator. If Mr. Kuderewko owed the RM legal fee costs, which he was required to pay from Court of Queens Bench Application removing him from Council, then I believed Council was not obligated to give out more taxpayers’ money. What this means is Council had 14 days to look at the facts and reconsider this payment and intentionally chose not to. What this further means is Council paid out $1929.23 when Mr. Kuderewko owed the RM $3393.15. I submitted a letter of correspondence to Council November 24 after this payment was rubber-stamped, requesting a written response to questions I had regarding this situation. I have yet to receive a written response. I am assuming that is because there are no answers why Council was so adamant in pushing this payment through without investigating or considering facts. These facts were gathered from accounts paid, meeting minutes, meeting resolutions and indicated that there was no money owing.
Lesson #4 Council does not have to be accountable to the ratepayers they serve, only the ones they choose to serve.
January 26/2021, at a regular meeting of Council, open forum, former Councillor Thompson who’s term expired October 2020, expressed disapproval of who’s land the aggregate extraction site for the Ministry of Highways project 322/220 was on. The Administrator stated the unfairness in discussing this as it had not yet been brought before Council.
Lesson #5 Not all ratepayers are treated equally.
A former Councillor can have their concerns addressed even before a matter comes to Council. Another ratepayer will not be acknowledged, and concerns are ignored when money is being paid out that is not justified according to the facts.
Lesson #6 Council does what Council wants.
If you are part of their tight-knit group or on some priority list, you will be heard; otherwise, good luck.
Ratepayers were promised honesty, integrity, accountability and transparency, and we expect nothing less. My experience as a ratepayer, with concerns not addressed, has been dismissive, deceptive, disrespectful and insulting.
RM 220 McKillop cannot function long term in these conditions.
-Leandra Cameron, RM 220 McKillop Ratepayer
Opinions expressed here are those of the writer and do not necessarily reflect those of LMT