Recent comments
Other News Stories
-
by Trail Champion on May 23 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on May 23 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on May 22 2013 -
by Contributor on May 22 2013 -
by Nelson Daily staff on May 21 2013
Opinions
-
by Andre Carrel on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Murray Dobbin on Friday May 24 2013 -
by Joseph Hughes on Thursday May 23 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on Monday May 20 2013 -
by John King on Thursday May 16 2013
Just to be certain: the city has hired a third party post-hoc "inspection" of the arena, and will now approach the new Auditor General for Local Government to ask if her office may be willing to take on a performance (not financial) audit, but as far as I know, the city has not yet decided to do a more extensive audit, such as a forensic (financial) audit.
Will this be the year we reap the legacy of over thirty years of clear-cutting in the Kootenay-Boundary (BC even)? It has long been predicted an event of catastrophic proportions will one day remind us of this misstep in our relation to the Earth.
I live at 3,000 feet in the July Creek dainage, that valley you travel as you come down towards Grand Forks from the West. There has been a lot of snow this winter, no thaw, and winter is not over yet.
Noteworthy and out of the ordinary for my 30 years on this harsh Southern facing slope is the fact all ephemeral streams have been running since the end of Novembre. Every spring and water hole along my X-ski trail is brimfull of water. I usual need a rope to bring up drinking water from my well. Since the start of Decembre I've simply been dipping the bucket from the well opening.
This of course all points to a water saturated forest floor. I've also heard many of our local logging contractors have been dealing with mud bogs out in the backcountry because of all this excess water.
Yes, all Regional Governments should give a heads-up to possible Acts of God (sic) coming our way. Russian Roulette has but one outcome in the end.
Remarks that include "never" and "always" tend to cause readers to think of exceptions that render the remark inaccurate. In your case, Speculate Swamp, one might immediately think of the audit recently commissioned by the City which did produce some information but not enough to figure out what went wrong. Now Council has authorized a more extensive audit which, if it goes forward, will produce more information. A more accurate statement might have been, "Audits rarely fix a problem." This would be true because "fixing" is not the purpose of an audit. The purpose is to provide infromation upon which others might base a fix.
Hiring an honest CAO is a good idea. Maybe that has already been done. Or maybe not. Too soon to tell, really. But I think it's fair to assume that hiring an honest person is usually Council's intention. However, changing CAOs every three years is an idea that anyone who understands the complexities of running a municipality is likely to view as impractical.
As for asking Council to do its duty, that has been done, repeatedly, at the Seniors Hall meeting, at Council meetings, and in the Telegraph. Recent actions taken and in the process of being taken by Council indicate that it is trying.
Oh boy! That would be heading down a one-way street in the wrong direction.
CAO means chief ADMINISTRATIVE officer. That is the individual who is supposed to see to it that the will of the council is implemented in compliance with all the laws, rules, and policies, within the parameters of the budget, recorded and documented in a manner that allows for everything to be verified after the fact.
Give that kind of responsibility to an individual accountable only to the current council, knowing that he/she would be gone by the time the next election is done, and you can imagine the opportunities for corruption thus created! Or turn that into an elected position - in other words a political position - and who then has the legitimacy to act on behalf of the people, the elected council or the elected CAO?
What is needed is for every member of council, individually and personally, to remind him/herself that he/she has sworn duty "to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality and its community" and "to contribute to the development and evaluation of the policies and programs of the municipality respecting its services and other activities" (Community Charter s. 115).
A council member is not supposed to KNOW the Community Charter or the Local Government Act. A council member is not supposed to KNOW a hoot about accounting, legal precedent, water purification, or the National Building Code.
A council member, having been elected as an individual on his or her own merits to serve on council, is supposed to remember just that. That he or she has been elected to a position of TRUST and RESPONSIBILITY and with that the power to do whatever is required to serve that trust.
There is nothing at all for a council member to be embarrassed for not knowing how something works, why it works, or how to make it work. One of a council member's duties is to dig for and insist on receiving answers. Proper answers that the council member understands, not baffle-gab that may sound smart.
Another duty is to spell out what is to be achieved by the municipality, and to get staff to confirm instructions given by council so as to assure council that the staff actually understands what it is the council wants.
If the CAO has a few ideas on how council's objectives could be achieved, the CAO has a duty to present these ideas in the form of options or alternatives, this way or that way, INCLUDING pluses and minuses for each option, so as to enable council to make informed decisions. That is not the same as telling council what to do.
Members of council DARE NOT FORGET that all other members of council were also elected on the basis of TRUST by the community, and that their views, opinions, and preferences are therefore equally valid.
There will be conflicts and disagreements on priorities and direction. There better be! If not, it would indicate a dead community. The purpose of debate and discussion at council meetings is to bring out all the differing views, visions, expectations, priorities and preferences, and to argue their respective advantages with the goal of finding a compromise with which the majority can agree to live with. A compromise is a solution with which nobody is totally happy, but one with which most everybody can live with. To quote Rodney King, a compromise decision is a "Can we all get along?" decision.
May the Force protect Rossland (or any municipality, for that matter) from a politicized administration!
Thanks for the great comment and all the info, Tyler!
A new honest CAO should be appointed each civic election. Otherwise it should be an elected position. Check out Bell City California. The CAO paid himself over 800,000 per year. Lots of people knew he was overpaid but were obviously on the take as well.
Ask your council to do their duty. The most honest person in the community should be appointed to this position.
Audits never produce anything. Who was the Auditors. We need a name and link. Maybe a picture or two of their staff.
Kathy, I am not blaming you or any of the people elected. For the most par people run because they want to do something for their town.
Where many trip, once elected, is in being to shy to ask "The Emperor has no clothes" type questions.
There is nothing wrong with asking when there is doubt.
If unsure, there is no reason why a decision cannot be set aside to a future meeting, call a special meeting if necessary.
As to relationship with the staff, the most senior staff above all, if a person in such position pushes elected councillors with a "do it my way and do it now or else" attitude, that is the surest possible sign you can have that you are dealing with the wrong person.
There is an opportunity here for council members and citizens of Rossland to learn from the experience of the past few years. Don't blow that opportunity for that would indeed be unfortunate.
i was told by my neighbor mr. jim heidt the bottle digger, that the murphy brewery was in our back yard on 1944 kootenay ave. strait over the bank form the old central hotel which later was renamed the irvin hotel, then even later renamed the white wolf hotel. there is a spring down here which more than likely is a flow from the esling creek water though.
Yeah, Jenner is right- The Le Roi Brewing Company was apparently below where the Miner's Hall is now, and supposedly that's where some of their old bottles were dug up- They, like John Murphy's brewery, did bottle their products. In fact, I think Joyce and the museum still have a wooden slatted keg from Le Roi on display.
I'm pretty sure John Murphy's brewery was more or less where Esling Park Lodge is today, while Louis Blue's Lion was somewhere in Upper Rossland east of Lincoln (now Queen).
The Columbia Brewing Company, I think, was the earliest incarnation of what would eventually become The Columbia Brewing Company we know in Creston (now owned by Labatt, who is owned by some other big-ass corporation).
Interesting to note, prior to the advent of refrigeration, brewing, especially lagering (that is, aging and conditioning lager beers) had to be done in the winter months and the winter months only; Your window for production was severely restricted, so you really had to churn out the suds in the winter. Not much has changed, eh?
Also worth noting, we still have introduced/transplanted hops growing throughout city limits, both a variation on those found in Yakima (Cascades), and an East Kent Goldings hybrid. Rumour has it, some of the hops found locally may even be related to the effectively extirpated Bramling's Cross, a hop type pretty much wiped out by a blight back in the day.
As with huckleberries, I have some terrific secret stashes for getting my hands on hops come summer and fall, as do other locals interested in home brewing- There are a surprising number of Rosslanders stewing up wort at home, from the extract kit user, to the whole grain artisans.
Trail Brewing (in Trail, across from Safeway) is a great resource for info, kits, and their own line of beers, too, the closest current option for getting your local drink on.
Thanks for the awesome article Allyson!
Andre and Rosa- you both make some excellent points. Andre, to your comment that there was no discussion or debate about the Delegation bylaw, I need to clarify- the only things that get noted in the minutes at any of our council meetings are motions put forward and the results of the vote. The content of the discussion, no matter how thorough or animated, does not get recorded. That will explain why it looks like there was no debate on the Delegation bylaw, or on any other matter, if no other motions were advanced.
As for what happened with the contract and the Delegation bylaw I think "snow job" sums it up nicely. Yes, its also true that council did not do due diligence- Obviously, logically one would ask why get so excited about powers that were already provided? And why spell out the delegation of these powers in another document? Why? because we trusted our professional staff! I know that I was concerned that we get off on the right footing with our new CAO and credited him with knowing more about muni government than I did...yes, in retrospect, I was a gullible fool. While he certainly knew a lot more about muni gov, I should not have checked my powers of reason and common sense at the door. It is always easy to recognize one's mistakes in retrospect, not as easy in the heat of the moment. I do believe that I have learned a fair amount since Dec 2009 and have tried not to fall into these pitfalls again....sadly, not entirely successfully I must say.
And yes, I want to revisit the Procedure bylaw too. Our deputy CAO has already mentioned that she has some improvements to offer on another aspect of the bylaw that will improve things. I am hoping that council is now interested in looking at all ways possible to improve the governance of the City of Rossland. There are a number of things we can look at to accomplish this goal. Stay tuned!
"Citizens for Safe Technology and the Coalition to Stop Smart Meters estimate that more than 250,000 homeowners have resisted having these devices, many on the basis of health conditions which could be exacerbated by the prolonged exposure to microwave radiation."
Seriously? 250,000 homeowners? Out of the 1.64 million total households in BC? Where does this estimate come from? How many is "many"? What are these mysterious "health conditions" which could be exacerbated by prolonged exposure to microwave radiation? And how are these people dealing with the current levels of microwave radiation to which they are exposed to ALL THE TIME already, and which is much much higher than what they will be exposed to by the smart meters? - Do they live in a Faraday cage? Or are they all wearing tinfoil hats?
Why does the Telegraph print press releases as news? How about doing a little investigative journalism before randomly printing news releases. Or is this meant as a bit of humour, like the "story" on sasquatch sightings?
"They should be read by anyone even vaguely interested in how decisions are made at City Hall."
Good advice Rosa, and allow me to explain how I read what I read in Kathy's comment, to be specific in just two sentences of Kathy's comments:
First sentence: "Mr. Kumar insisted that the bylaw did not give him any additional powers than he already got through the legislation, his contract and other policies."
My immediate reaction to this is: what is the purpose of the bylaw if all it does is delegate powers that have already been delegated? Should Rossland Council adopt a Gravity Bylaw to ensure that when it rains the drops hit the ground? It would have been interesting to hear Victor's explanation as to why a bylaw was necessary to delegate something that is already delegated by legislation, his contract, and council policies.
Second sentence: "He got rather animated and upset during the course of the discussion and reminded us that getting this Delegation bylaw was a condition of his contract and that he would have not have taken the job without it."
If the first sentence was silly, this one ventures onto thin ice. Section 3 of the Delegation Bylaw refers to "s. 154(1) (b) of the Community Charter." Here is what that section says:
"154(1) A council may, by bylaw, delegate its powers, duties and functions, including those specifically established by an enactment, to the extent provided, to
(b) an officer or employee of the municipality, or"
Council is allowed to delegate powers, duties and functions "to the extent provided", by bylaw, not by contract.
What was Victor talking about when he said that all those powers had already delegated to him by way of his employment contract? The Charter does not allow a council to delegate powers by contract. It must be done by bylaw. Was Victor misunderstanding the terms of his contract? Did council contravene the Charter? Was Victor's contract legal? Or did somebody pull a snow-job?
We need to read on what section 154(2) has to say:
"As an exception, a council may not delegate the following:
(a) the making of a bylaw;
(b) a power or duty exercisable only by bylaw;"
Victor's claim that council was, under the terms of his employment contract, obliged to adopted the Delegation Bylaw flies in the face of s. 154(2)(b). This section means that a council does not have the power to limit or curtail in any way whatsoever "a power or duty exercisable only by bylaw." Council may delegate powers, but it cannot be obliged by contract to do so.
This is not an accusation, it is a question: did council fall short of its due diligence before approving Victor's contract?
A more important question, however, concerns the professional quality of the advice council received from its CAO with respect to his own employment contract and to the Delegation Bylaw.
If this kind of sloppy work went passed council in "Hugh?-Bang-Bang" style, what else is there to be found under the carpets at Rossland City Hall?
Rosa's advice on the subject of "required reading" is good advice indeed, advice council members (not just in Rossland, believe me) ought to take seriously, very seriously.
This article, plus comments by Kathy ("Council Responsibilities") and Andre ("Now that You Mention it" and his previous remarks) are highly informative. They should be read by anyone even vaguely interested in how decisions are made at City Hall. The initial article summarizes many of the problems our town now faces, while the comments by these two very knowledgable people go a long way toward explaining how they came about. All of the above ought to be required reading for every councillor or wanna-be councillor.
Thank you Kathy, I stand corrected.
Your explanation, however, brings up point relating to another Rossland Bylaw, specifically the Council Procedure Bylaw.
Take a look at the Minutes of Council Meeting of Dec/17/09:
http://www.rossland.ca/sites/default/files/minutes_special-meeting_december-17-_2009-12-17.pdf
That was a special meeting, with the full council present. The minutes tell me that Councillors Stradling and Charlton wanted the bylaw referred back to staff. Council disagreed.
Spearn and Smith moved in a single motion that Bylaw #2473 be given first and second reading (bearing in mind my comments on what giving a bylaw a "reading" means). Councillor Charlton alone voted against it.
Immediately following that, Wallace and Smith moved that Bylaw #2473 be given third reading. Councillor Charlton again was alone in voting against it.
There is not a hint of the debate and discussions referred to by you, Kathy, in those minutes. Not a word. From where I sit, 1,000 or whatever km and over three years away from the action, reading the minutes indicates not that the bylaw went through "Bang-Bang-Bang" as I falsly suggested earlier, but "Hugh?-Bang-Bang" (the "Hugh?" part being the failed attempt to send the bylaw back to staff, and the two Bangs being the two votes it took to give the bylaw three readings.
And that brings me to Bylaw #2522, Council Procedure Bylaw. I am working on a piece on that subject. And thank you Kathy for your recollections of the birth of the Delegation Bylaw. That process provides me with valuable material for my Council Procedure Bylaw piece.
And finally, I do not participate in these discussions because I have an axe to grind, or anything of the sort. I have long ago retired and playing full-time grandpa gives me all the jollies I can imagine. What motivates me here is that democracy is my passion, it is in my blood. It is what motivated me, in response to a challenge from Rossland Council over two decades ago to write the Constitution Bylaw. It is what motivate me to write a book and what motivates me today to write occasional columns for various papers. I am motivated (okay, driven) by my passion for democracy, not by personality stuff. That would be far too boring.
Andre has brought up some excellent points but there are a couple of items that need clarification: Just in case anyone is confused, the DDB (Dastardly Delegation Bylaw) was passed in Dec 2009. It came to the previous council at our first meeting with our new CAO, Mr Kumar. Having a mutually agreed upon Delegation bylaw was a condition of his accepting the position. None of us were particularly upset by the prospect. There was already a Delegation bylaw in place from his predecessor, many munis delegate some powers to various senior staff. The "mutually agreed" provision seemed to be reasonable.
Unfortunately, what happened was not mutual agreement at all. We were presented with a far reaching Delegation bylaw. Contrary to what Andre imagined, there was lively discussion about this issue with a number of councillors (myself included) voicing concern. Councillors Charlton and Stradling were particularly vocal about their opposition to giving up so much power. The Delegation bylaw is limited by what is allowed under the city's purchasing policy and the OCP. Mr Kumar insisted that the bylaw did not give him any additional powers than he already got through the legislation, his contract and other policies. He got rather animated and upset during the course of the discussion and reminded us that getting this Delegation bylaw was a condition of his contract and that he would have not have taken the job without it. This was a bit alarming.
Technically, he was correct- but only because we entered into such an abysmal contract with him! And for those negotiations we even had a hiring committee made up of Councillors Charlton, Smith (I think) and Mayor Granstrom. I am just saying, the current council is certainly not alone in having made some very poor decisions. What drove me crazy was that the current council seemed not to have learned from these past mistakes and when the opportunity came up to hire a new CAO this year, we made similar and worse mistakes when it came to hiring and contracting procedure, despite having 4 people from the previous council (Granstrom, Wallace, Spearn and myself).
At the time, despite having been in office for about a year, we were still fairly new to city business; there is a steep learning curve. And we had been without a CAO for most of that time. Sad to say but we were a bit of a rudderless ship during this time and were anxious to get our new CAO on board and start making some real progress for the benefit of the community. Just like the current council, we wanted to trust staff and believe what we were told. New councillors get that "trust your staff" drilled in pretty hard in orientation sessions. I am sure for many municipalities this would be appropriate. In our case, it was not. (Remember, I am only talking about the top, we did not have a lot of interaction with other city managers and employees).
This does not excuse any of the poor decisions that were made. (Of course, this is just my opinion. Others may not have any second thoughts about their votes). Mea culpa, I voted for that nasty Delegation bylaw, just like I voted to hire Mr Kumar. He seemed so experienced and competant! and Councillor Charlton respected him. That in itself seemed to be a ringing endorsement. I have regretted those votes ever since.
The good news is that the Delegation bylaw is going to be reviewed. I think Andre's point is a good one: First ask, what is the problem you are trying to solve? What do we really need to delegate and why? If we can't answer that question intelligently then we should not be delegating anything. I'd be curious to see the impact of not having a Delegation bylaw at all and see what comes up. Then, if we decided we needed one, we could enact an appropriate bylaw to address the issues. I am looking forward to the opportunities coming up for council to reassert some control of city business. We are responsible, we are accountable, the buck stops here and for that to happen, we have to have more than a modicum of control and oversight.
If this your comment is indicitive of the general attitude of BC'ers I guess us Albertans just won't come to the Koots to spend our money to help boost your economy. We can just as easily take our money and spend it elsewhere, like in the USA. Yes I hate the stupid Alberta rednecks just as much as you but painting all Albertans with the same brush is just as stupid. As an ex-pat BC'er now living in Alberta I'm pretty insulted with your comment.
I don't know, Les. The chances of trust having been abused would seem to be pretty strong. Abuse of trust, however, can work in two directions. One party may abuse the trust of others by sneaking something under the wire, but equally one party may abuse trust in the sense of neglecting his or her own responsibility in the making of a decision, taking the easy way out by "trusting" whatever is presented. In the latter case, the advice or guidance from the trusted party may have been mistaken, and that mistake could have been detected if the trusting council member had done more than simply accepted whatever is placed in front of him or her.
Consider this example out of Bylaw #2473, the Delegation Bylaw. Section 3 of that bylaws states "Council hereby delegates to the Chief Administrative Officer all of the powers, duties and functions of Council under s. 154(1)(b) of the Community Charter ..." and it goes on.
This bylaw was given first, second, and third reading on December 17, 2009, thirteen months after the election. Council members had been on the job for a little over a year. They had gained some experience. What made them decide that they should delegate not just some, but ALL of the powers, duties and functions assigned to them by the Community Charter to one staff person? Did any member of the council of the day check the Community Charter to determine what s. 154(1)(b) was all about?
"First Reading" of a bylaw is a formality, it is the introduction of a bylaw to council, a bylaw drafted by staff on its own initiative, or the mayor's instructions, or earlier council direction.
"Second Reading" (according to the Dictionary of Canadian Law) means "Parliamentary consideration of the principle of a measure at which time one may consider other methods of reaching its proposed objective."
"Third Reading" means "Parliamentary review of a bill in its final form.
So here we have a bylaw whose objective it is to delegate ALL the powers, duties and functions a council is allowed to delegate (that's what s. 154(1)(b) says). Who asked for it? Why? To what degree did council's lawful "powers, duties and functions" overwhelm council so that it was necessary for council to dump all it was allowed to dump on staff?
First, second, and third reading of Bylaw #2473 went bang-bang-bang.
How much discussion and debate did council members engage in at second reading to consider "the principle" of that delegation? What "other methods" did council consider at that stage that may allow it to reach the bylaw's proposed objectives? Look at the minutes, it went through banb-bang-bang.
Maybe staff did pull a con job on council by placing that bylaw on the agenda.
But with an equal "maybe" council fell short of its sworn duties (remember, they all take an oath of office) and simply allowed staff to lead council by the nose, down the path.
Did any council member (and that includes the mayor) ever ask "Why do we have to vote three times on a bylaw, and the a fourth time one day later?" "What is a "Reading" and is there a difference between a "First", a "Second" and a "Third" reading?" Did any council member ask what s. 154(1)(b) was all about since that the delegation of power, duties and functions is tied to that section? Did any council member ask if it was really necessary to delegate ALL of their "powers, duties and functions" to staff? ALL of them? "Should we maybe retain one or two of our powers, duties and functions? You know, the ones we were elected to perform and be responsible for?"
In my view, Les, ALL the blame does not rest with staff, some - actually a good measure - has to stick with council members ... all of them. If it is good enough for council members to simply "trust" the advice of staff and rubber stamp whatever is presented on the agenda, then why bother with having elections at all? If the people you have elected can't or won't do the job, why don't they resign and allow somebody who has the time and energy to do the job run in their stead?
I encouraged Kathy Moore to run for mayor last election, as I'm sure many others did, and I will again in the next. She'd be just great.
Coun. Moore did, after all, receive the highest number of votes of any councillor, and she has shown herself to be a remarkably competent public servant, despite what's been thrown back at her. I thank her for her dedicated service.
You think she's doing this for her political advancement? I hardly think so.
On the other hand, it's been a great display of incompetence on behalf of the sitting mayor and most of council, enough to convince me that 4 of my 6 votes were poorly cast.
I don't think it would have required any special experience or training one year ago for councillors to realize that Mayor Granstrom had knowledge about a serious breach of an employee's contract and the city's purchasing policy since the day Ward resigned, yet had decided to do nothing and tell no-one.
As a councillor, wouldn't that make you sit up and wonder why the mayor hadn't filled you in months before?
And then, months later when the auditor came back with a report that, in its limited way, very much supported Kathy Moore's story, wouldn't that have encouraged you to finally ask the questions you'd been talked out of (likely by the mayor and CAO)?
This isn't 20-20 hindsight, it's common sense: Some simple facts sure encouraged a public outcry quickly enough once they were published! I guess we didn't have the benefit of Victor Kumar spinning wool over our eyes to calm us down.
This so-called "high road" of witless trust in officials who turned out to be untrustworthy is an attempt to whitewash very poor decision making and wilful ignorance with moralistic soap. It's an evasion of responsibility.
No, I for one am fully convinced that councillors, whether on the advice of the mayor and the CAO or not, individually made the poor decisions that are now biting their rear end. They could have handled this much better, and then they wouldn't be hearing about it so loudly and clearly from the public.
(And if they'd agreed to apologize for their longstanding inaction that has all the appearance of a cover-up, that would have further satisfied and quieted Rossland citizens.)
Ah well, they've cooked themselves a sour broth now. And make no mistake, they're the chefs, not the media nor any supposedly ambitious individual.
The best thing council can do now is get on with fixing the root problems. And, despite the occasional lack of unanimity on this approach, at least council as a whole has made more-or-less the right decisions since Jan. 8, thanks in large part to Coun. Moore's continuing pressure, raising important motions...
PoisonSmartMeters and EMF Radiation Poison
copy and paste, make your own mind up!
In one sense, I feel a great sympathy for the Rossland City Councillors in that they were duped and had their trust taken advantage of. The awarding of six figure & plus contracts is something that normally is handled by someone who is trained to scrutinize the short list of companies that could be awarded such contracts. Invariably, and innocently, the city’s councillors voted against hiring someone who was an expert in doing competency audits. Council’s goal and mandate is to save the city’s citizens money where ever possible. Unfortunately, all of these slamming and these demeaning accusations are the result of a group of local citizens who were civic minded enough to offer their services to be civil servants to the citizens of Rossland.
To put it in plain and simple terms, a trusted friend knew how to take advantage of this lack of experience and trust in a fellow employee. Our society is not based on cynicism, but on trusting and working with another’s morals and integrity. Sadly, our elected city officials have been duped into something that they were ill equipped to deal with at the time. The entire conflict of interest episode was discovered after the fact.
It is easy to blame and chastise through 20/20 hindsight; however, when a person sits down and really considers all the aspects of what has taken place at city hall this past 18 months, who can say for certain that what happened “was allowed to happen”? From what I can gather, what took place that is now causing so much anger and myriads of innuendoes and accusations, was due to a complete lack of experience and well intended actions by the elected city councillors and the mayor.
Can anyone who is jumping on these rumours come in here and state that Mayor Granstrom and his councillors knew what Mr. Ward was doing while he was carrying out his scheme; then, intentionally attempted to cover it up?
From what I can see, we are seeing one individual using this city hall episode as a personal stepping stone to running for mayor in the next civic election. Keep your eyes open on this one.
Do you have any other details? Maybe it was one of the more "pretentious" breweries Kingsmill scoffed at!
i think there was another brewery in the 1700 block of le roi ave called the le roi brewery too.
thanks Allyson,
another interesting and well researched article,
Here's to you, glug!
They are the ones ruining this area big time with their holier than thou attitudes. The way they drive on the local highways, roads & streets & demand to be served first. Blah! :(
Apparently Chief Teresa(double chin) has the UN intriqued, there could be help for those starving in the third world, her fish broth recipe on her month long starvation t diet and she shows no symptoms or sign that she has been on a hunger strike, I like her Cadillac Escalade and Hummer too.