Recent comments

Multudious? Okay, always eager to enrich my vocabulary.

Lawsuit #1 was?

And lawsuit #2 was?

And lawsuit #3 was?

How many does it take to merit the multudious label?

I guess this article kind of prestages the current fiasco doesn't it?

Please scroll down and read André's comment "Democracy and stuff and everything". It gets to the core of the problem. The Jason Ward scandal is only a symptom.

In the nearly 30 years I have known André he has always been a strong advocate for Democracy, not just as a feel-good word to be recited in slogans but as an ideal to strive for. The most important aspect of Democracy is the responsibility of citizens, especially the responsibility to understand what they are voting for. If we vote for slogans or simple answers or platitudinous campaign brochures we are shirking our responsibility as citizens. It is also our responsibility to pay attention to what our elected representatives do between elections.

We have had at least four consecutive councils caught up in the entirely false promises of growth and resortism and consequently making many fiscally and socially irresponsible decisions which have had a destructive impact on Rossland's taxes and the civility of the community. Yet most of the citizens of Rossland have, until very recently, chosen to bask in wilful ignorance, content to vote every 3 years, if they even bother to do that, and to ignore the actions of the council the rest of the time.

In the last year of the Smith council there was a brief awakening of the citizens over a couple of issues including what was possibly the most irresponsible action by any council in Rossland's history, the decision to give away the most productive area of Rossland's watershed to a developer. If only six more voters had taken the trouble find out what the furor was about, Rossland could have had a far better council after that fall's election, a council that might not have passed what was possibly the second most irresponsible council decision in Rossland's history, the Delegation Bylaw.

It is time now for those who believe in Democracy to start thinking about the election nearly 2 years away and to find appropriate candidates for the desperately needed all-but-one change of council. The candidates need to have the sense to be highly sceptical of what they are told by people who hope to profit from their decisions. They need to be willing to do the homework required to understand the real reasons for and the real impact of the bylaws they vote on. They need to not be overly reliant on staff, especially staff hired by the last 2 administrators. They need to understand the truly anti-democratic nature of unnecessary secrecy and the importance of involving the public by, at the very minimum, letting them know what is being considered and seeking input before voting. They need to understand that having been elected does not give them the right to ignore the will of the citizens after the election.

No manual discipline required,  Andre.  Alas, I don't have a fax machine, or I would have been mightily  tempted.  It kinda boggles the mind, doesn't it?

Well, thanks for this gracious reply to a reply to a reply. I think everyone who takes the time to post to these threads cares about Rossland and wants to see it be their best. Honest debate will bring us all closer to that day.

But for now, clearly, there's been some big mistakes (or worse) and there remains an urgent need to get to the bottom of this whole sorry mess. And if, at the bottom, we find Mr. Granstrom blameless, I'm sure we'll all be happy to know that. But right now we know almost nothing.

Why don't you send a fax to 250-362-5451 to ask your question? You might be surprised by the answer.

(I know, I deserve an application of manual discipline on the forehead for the suggestions, but it was just too good an opportunity to pass up. As miserable as things can get, can't afford to pass up an occasional smile).

I'd like to give this a respectful reply as I can see you are coming from a sincere place here. Referencing your first comment yesterday, I didn't use your first name because when I converse online with people I don't know I use Mr. or Ms. There was no dig there at you or your father. And I'm not even sure of your first name, actually.

Next, you make a point about tone. Well, I guess the tone is one of outrage, which is what I and, obviously, a big roomful of Rosslanders feel. Right or wrong, it's a sincere feeling arising out of many months of frustration with the doings at City Hall. It's not a tone I set out to create in order to turn the 'mob' against the mayor.

Many of us came to that meeting sincerely hoping for answers, as Lesley Beatson has noted in her letter. However, we didn't get any. And that's just a fact. And so one reaches a point where one says, 'this is beyond the pale. I can't support this state of affairs any more'.

We've covered Mayor Granstrom for going on five years as mayor and until the last year I'd say we were pretty respectful and had a decent relationship with him. But starting with the roofing of the pool and everything that came after, it got harder and harder to support what was going on at City Hall and the man who chose to be ultimately responsible for it when he ran for office.

I don't personally believe that Mr. Granstrom is a bad or a dishonest man. I do, however, feel that he has handled this whole thing very poorly, to the point where a roomful of many of Rossland's most engaged and informed residents--parents, volunteers, neighbours all of them--felt like their desire for answers to reasonable questions had been thwarted.

We're all only human, editors of small town newspapers included (though that might suprise some!). And sometimes I line gets drawn and sometimes a line gets crossed and sometimes decent people find themselves on opposite sides of that line.

For me, the tone is outraged because I value clarity of thought and communication--and there's precious little of that coming from City Hall these days.

Why did I ask, at the meeting, if the mayor had a personal relationship with Mr. Ward? Because a Telegraph reader posted the question and it was a relevant one. Many around town are probably asking themselves if there's cronyism in this situation given the way all normal safeguards were disregarded and the very odd timing of Mr. Ward's departure for 'personal reasons'. By asking the question up front, I gave Mr. Granstrom the opportunity to give a straight answer. He gave a straight answer and I take him at his word.

If only all the answers on Thursday evening had been that straight, we wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

Respectfully...

Does that make you the judge or will you be taking the role of prosecutor?  

Some would argue that running the newspaper that helped expose all this is a form of public service and a constructive act for the community. And some would see it as idle stone casting, I guess! I've considered running in the past, actually, but tend to think that it's just as important to keep an eye on council as to be on council. And why 'casting stones'? All I'm doing is stating facts.

What defense is there for the mayor? Can you make a reasoned one that doesn't involve casting stones at me?

Adrian, like you, last night's meeting made me proud to be a Rossland. Your article does, too.  You have spoken, beautifully, for all of us.

Many things need doing now, including things that should have been done in 2009 when, as Andre Carrel points out, the then-council, headed by Mayor Granstrom, handed virtually all its most important powers over to incoming CAO Victor Kumar.  The un-doing of this Delegation Bylaw, and much else that citizens are now demanding , can be done now--but  only if a significant number of councillors are willing to work alongside Councillor Moore instead of voting against every motion she makes.

The mayor has disgraced himself and our town by letting corruption run rampant and go unpunished. But let is remember that he did not do this alone. He has been supported in his neglect of duty all along the way by councillors who were also neglecting theirs, and by citizens who were neglecting theirs. The do-nothing people who now sit around the council table did not get into office by force. They were put there by the votes of a majority of those who voted AND by those who chose not to participate in the democratic process. Recall that the mayor, this last time around, wasn't voted into office. He got in because not one citizen cared enough about Rossland's present or its future to run against him. 

All of us, and not just the mayor, need to step up to the plate and do what we can to ensure that from now on our town is better managed by more competent people. Meetings need to be held. Complaints need to be lodged--not with friends but formally, with council members. Pressure needs to be brought to bear. We CAN bring about change. 

If we will attend to our responsibilities as citizens, they will have no choice but to attend to theirs. And if we can't be bothered, why should they?

As I understand these allegations, the City`s building inspector, lacking engineer qualifications, was hired by the Municipality as a contractor to design and install remedial construction work on a City owned building. He then reviewed, approved, inspected and passed his own company's work in his other capacity as the City Building Inspector. He used untendered contracts, presumably awarded to him by City administration, to invoice and receive $185,000 for this completed but untendered work. In light of these allegations I was appalled at the Mayor's dismissive, mono-syllabic and evasive replies to the persistent inquires throughout yesterday's CBC Daybreak radio interview. In my search for the truth of this matter I would like to know which City employee and / or council member was ultimately responsible for awarding these untendered and illigitimate contracts to this unqualified City employee who landed himself squarely in this conflict-of-interest position. As well, how can Rossland taxpayers ever confirn now if they got a fair deal for their $185,000`s worth of untendered work. Further, how can the citizens of Rossland know that this work, which was designed and installed by an unqualified contractor, (and inspected for compliance by the same person), meets any objective engineering and construction standards. I think the building inspector was simply a willing if not witless pawn in this debacle. Someone above him in City Hall would surely have either encouraged or allowed or offered him these contracts, knowing these works were untendered and fraught with conflict-of-interest issues in the hands of the building inspector. Until now, I thought this kind of backroom scandal was the purvue of Quebec municipal affairs.I applaud and encourage the Rossland councillor who continues to act on behalf of her constituents to ferret out the truth from the reticent culprit(s) behind this controversy.

Sounds like you have your platform..    Or is it better to sit and cast stones.  I guess if we don't see your name in the next election,  we will all know where YOU stand.