June 10, 2021 - we disagreed with the administration’s interpretation of the UBAS Act requiring a building permit on farm dwellings, and we had to seek clarification on the matter.
June 14, 2021 - we received clarification and confirmation from the Chief Building Official for Saskatchewan on the legislation confirming we did not need a building permit for a farm dwelling according to legislation and the RM building bylaw. We forwarded this information to the administration, which was accepted and filed.
June 18, 2021 - we sent a letter of correspondence to the council with concerns that legislation and RM building bylaw were not going to be properly applied in our situation. For example, the RM website states all buildings in the RM require building permits, which is incorrect for farm dwellings. They do not need a building permit.
June 22, 2021 - The administration recommended a building permit still be required, which would be enforced by the administration.
Witnessing a resolution to require a building permit that would be enforced on you when you know the administration and council know one is not needed is bullying and harassment.
On June 22, 2021, there was no discussion regarding our letter of correspondence to the council informing them a building permit is not required. No mention that the administration received confirmation of the legislation and accepted this ruling on June 14, 2021, that a building permit is not required. The chief building official resolved the matter on June 14, 2021, yet the council passed a resolution on June 22, 2021, based on the administration’s advice that a building permit should still be required for our particular project.
Councillor Garry Dixon’s motion for the resolution was, “I’ll make a resolution that this particular addition requires a building permit if for no other reason for energy efficiency code.” Our addition was also singled out in the resolution as “this particular addition,” when all farm dwellings did not require a building permit according to legislation and the RM’s building bylaw.
After we heard this resolution on June 22, 2021, we contacted the chief building official, who intervened a second time on our behalf and set up a meeting with the administration on June 28, 2021.
When the administration and council could not require or enforce a building permit against the legislation, the administration altered the resolution’s intent after the fact to reflect a permit be required if determined necessary by the administration. The administration deemed it necessary on June 22, 2021, and the council passed the resolution to require a permit.
Below is the resolution in the RM meeting minutes, changed after the fact, which was not the resolution voted on by the council on June 22, 2021.
Letter to Council from Ratepayer Moved By: Garry Dixon
Resolution No: 8.1
THAT the RM of McKillop No. 220 enforce the need for a building permit for the sunroom being constructed if it is determined necessary by the administration.
Councillors at that time named in the complaint were Councillor Dixon, Labatte, Gilbert, Romanyk, Whitrow and Reeve Schmidt. Councillors Dixon, Labatte and Reeve Schmidt were the only ones to submit written submissions responding to the complaint. Unfortunately, these submissions council used to base their decision to dismiss ethics complaint 04-2021 contain misleading information and crucial information omitted.
Fact:
Administration had the legislation clarified to them on June 14, 2021, by the government.
Therefore, there was no reason for the administration to advise the council a building permit could be required and enforced on June 22, 2021.
The council conveniently ignored this fact in their submissions. The CAO also omitted this crucial information from her code of conduct complaint response.
Fact:
This was not a simple misunderstanding on June 22, 2021. The government clarified the legislation on June 14, 2021; anything after this date is irrelevant and indicative of bullying and harassment.
According to Reeve Schmidt, the misunderstanding occurred from the chief building official’s email on June 21, 2022, where the administration could require a building permit if the RM changed its bylaws. It is ludicrous that the administration and council thought they could change bylaws while the meeting was in progress so that a permit could be required and enforced for our particular project at that specific moment. Again, why was the administration trying to find ways to require and enforce a permit on our project by changing bylaws when they knew from the government June 14, 2021, we did not need a building permit? Furthermore, the council cannot apply bylaws retroactively, and our building project would still be exempt from a building permit.
The reeve states the council had already voted on the motion (which was to require a permit, period, not if determined necessary by the administration) while the administration and the chief building official exchanged emails to resolve the misunderstanding. The reeve states the information then came to the next council meeting on July 13, 2021. This is false. This matter was not on the agenda for discussion at the July 13, 2021, meeting. Reeve Schmidt refers to this situation as a simple misunderstanding; so why did this information not come to the meeting, where the council should have rescinded the resolution, which required a permit, since they could not legally carry out the resolution? Council, instead, approved the minutes they knew contained a false resolution, not truthfully reflecting what occurred on June 22, 2021.
Council and administration have gone to great lengths to omit, twist and misrepresent the facts to hide the bullying and harassment that occurred on June 22, 2021.
Councillor Labatte’s submission claims it was an unintentional error corrected with a written apology by the CAO to the complainants. Also, claiming the reeve had made a written apology as steps taken. However, we have never seen or received a written apology from anyone. Furthermore, the evidence clearly shows this was not an unintentional error.
Councillor Dixon defends his actions and the false resolution, as many times a motion made by the council is not the exact wording in the resolution. Councillor Dixon refers to what the CAO said; the administration often writes resolutions to suit the terminology used in bylaws or policies. This is understandable, but it is not applicable in the case of this resolution, where the actual intent of this resolution was changed.
Regarding ethics complaint, 04-2021 council directed the administration to request we enter into mediation, and if there were not a satisfactory outcome, the complaint would go to a third-party investigation. Unfortunately, the mediation process and outcome were unsatisfactory, and a third-party investigation did not happen. This led to complaint 03-2022, which is still being dealt with but is a story for another day.
In his submission regarding complaint 03-2022, Reeve Schmidt believes it is bullying and harassment when ratepayers file valid ethics complaints seeking resolution to these complaints.
Reeve Bob Schmidt should step down if he does not respect and understand the role of a leader in public office.
In addition, Councillor Garry Dixon should do the same. Ratepayers require trust that the minutes represent what occurred at the meetings. Councillor Dixon has broken that trust by not being truthful about his motion to require a building permit for no reason other than the energy efficiency code. Furthermore, although Councillor Dixon had the opportunity to correct the resolution he made when it came before the council to approve the meeting minutes, which contained the false resolution, he did not.
McKillop ratepayers deserve better.
This complaint requires impartial judgment rather than the council omitting, twisting and misrepresenting facts to suit their agenda in dismissing their ethics violations with unjustified submissions to themselves.
-Gerry and Leandra Cameron
Supporting Documents provided by Leandra Cameron
The above was submitted by a reader about a matter previously covered in LMT. It is from the perspective of the writer(s), and we would also be happy to print an opposing opinion, should one be submitted. So, as always - Opinions and views expressed here are those of the writers and don’t necessarily represent those of LMT. So if you have a problem with what was said here, please write your own letter in response to this, citing this story’s title and publication date. No one ever seems to have a problem with Peter Foster’s letters, but nevertheless, I assume it’s the silent majority.
