Recent comments

To clarify, the roof portion of the arena project was properly-tendered and awarded to Glynn Canada, Ltd. It's the rest of the project that's under scrutiny...a half million dollars worth of work.

A thought on the exchange between Les Anderson and the Mayor with reference to the norm as it concerns terms and conditions attached to larger contracts.

In the concluding line of that exchange, the Mayor is reported to have said that the contracting conditions referred to by Les Anderson were not applied to the project in question and that, in hindsight, this may be something Rossland may need to consider in the future.

That comment, in the context of the Delegation Bylaw and the compensation packages for senior staff at City Hall, leads me to conclude that "You get what you pay for" may not be applicable across the board. 

I can mostly resist the urge to comment on Andre Carrel writing about anything but his take on taxes just put me over the top.  First of any level of government is supposed to be here for the community, not the other way around.  It is an unfortunate fact that once elected it seems that politicians want to cater to their own pet projects and are more interested in their expense accounts than any percieved value for the tax payers dollar.  One only has to look at mayor Granstroms recent public evasions to realize that any sort of accountability is just the merest whiff in the hot air that emenates from political offices.

Anyway, back to Andre.  How anyone that clearly demonstrated that he didn't give a hoot for the average taxpayer by continually embroilling cit hall in legal disputes with these taxpayers write about how we should be pleased to fund governnent mismanagement and smile while we remit is beyond me.  Take a break Andre and stop writing how lucky we are to have governing bodies inefficiently spending our money!  Part of the mess Rossland is in goes back to when you were running things!  Your antagonistic approach, lack of oversight and just plain heavy handed response to any tax paying citizens concern  led to tens of thousands in legal fees to defend the 'city' from the very citizens it was supposed to look after!

So please, please, please,just  resist the urge to tell us your sycophantic ramblings on the goodness of government.  It will at least save me from getting all riled up now and then and writing in response.

Thank you very much mister Granstrom for organising that meeting on the 3rd of January.

Thank you very much  mister Granstrom for accepting to do a telephone interview on the morning of the fourth to a very professional CBC radio newscaster.

This telephone interview should be required listening to any Rossland citizen who might feel complacent about his/her responsibility to keep in touch with what is going on in this beautiful city.

Here is the link: http://www.cbc.ca/player/Radio/Local+Shows/British+Columbia/ID/2323062134/

Thank you very mister Granstrom for your efficiency provoking some reaction even possibly from the most indifferent or unconcerned citizen (the French word would be Blase).

I have to admit that I came out of that meeting in a state of shock. I am sure that any citizen of Rossland (or any other city) who will listen to that interview will quickly reach that same state of awe.

The participants of this meeting really warmed my hearth with their evident commitment, well thought out questions and great display of respect (it was definitely not a lynch mob). Thank you very much mayor Granstrom for being the catalyst for such a pleasant and efficient display of citizenship by this group which accepted your invitation.

I hope that you will continue by doing everything that is in your power to allow all of us to go to the bottom of all the possible ramifications highlighted by this event. I hope that you will have the courage to take any decision that will be required by the situation however difficult those decisions might be. I hope that you will encourage all the members of your council to display the same courage.

Regards,

Paul Picard

Things certainly got off to an aggressive start when Leigh Harrison jumped on Bill Profili about potentially being an "apologist for the mayor."

That unfortunate beginning smoothed out later, I believe, when Harrison apologized to Profili and took his tone to one of consistent respect, a tone that characterized all the speakers—with the possible exception of a very pointed, if very apt, question by Mountain FM.

As for the rest of your analysis, I've just had the opportunity to spend 8 hours listening to the 1.5 hours of tape in detail. I've transcribed pretty much the whole meeting verbatim.

This detailed record should allow people to make up their own mind about whether Mr. Granstrom received unfair treatment or, as I believe, his responses were disrespectful to a slighted citizenry.

I think people asked legitimate questions and, quite simply, did not get the answers they deserved. He could have turned up to the meeting with facts to share; instead he chose from a limited set of banal evasive manoeuvres.

If it's a question of tone of voice, I believe it was the mayor who first went red and started shouting at the audience, hands shaking. I was sitting right beside him. I do not think anyone shouted in return. I can make the tape available for all who would like to verify.

As for mob mentality, I'd have to attribute that more to council decisions that went along with what was presumably CAO Victor Kumar's advice to sweep this thing under the rug against Coun. Kathy Moore's better sense that citizens deserve and want to know what happened.

By "sweep under the rug" I mean the choice to not inform council in September, but waiting until Coun. Moore figured it out months later. Then, Coun. Moore had to fight to get it into the audit. And then council, in their mob mentality informed by the CAO, chose not to conduct a forensic audit. Finally, the auditors reply was kept from the public until Laurie Charlton and I complained to the FOI commissioner directly. I have a letter that explains how he had to convince the city that yes, the public has a right to these records.

It's pretty clear why the former CAO wanted it hush-hush, at least until he resigned: he's the one who screwed up the most—or at least, I'd like to believe it was a mistake.

And, despite the potential for fraud here, the RCMP have yet to be contacted. Maybe it's just like Granstrom's wife commented recently in "put up or shut up," and it's not about expecting council to do its job, but up to us to contact the Inspector of Municipalities. Sheesh.

Given the extreme disrespect this mayor and council have shown to process, policy, and democracy, I observed that the meeting was remarkably calm, punctuated as it was by disbelieving laughter, groans, and instinctive applause that clearly favoured the open, transparent, and accountable approach championed by Coun. Moore.

Some of the credit goes to former mayor Bill Profili who, I believe, steered the course of the evening admirably, despire Harrison's initial misgivings.

To anyone reading this comment, rather than take soest's "shame" to heart, take some time to read the "he said she said" we'll post soon and make up your own mind.

need to get a grip on the rowdy underage drinking parties.  Parents...do you know where your little Johnny and Suzie were up to New Year's Eve?  Taxpayers provided a free service.  Your boozed up kids ruined it for all.  

We're held to account by our communities, our advertisers and our readers. I find it interesting you use the term "hiding" ... especially when I put my full name to every article, column or comment I pen, while you hide your own. 

I very personally stand behind everything I write, in front of my friends, family, colleagues, and thousands of people I don't even know ... as do all of our writers.

We also allow others to criticize and critique what we do/say within a medium we provide - I only ever delete comments that are a) illegal or b) contain foul language.

If only our elected officials were all so willing to "hide".

I WILL, thank you, feel free to question our publicly-elected officials, as should all residents and media alike ... in fact, they should see it as their responsibility, and feel guilty if they don't bother. Those officials who find our doing so objectionable should not seek offices of public trust and accountability - in that case, they're obviously incompetent to manage all aspects of the job, which includes transparency.

Asking about a relationship, even whether it exists, makes neither accusation nor insinuation ... you're the only person in the thread who used words like "corruption" and "insult".

You clearly have no desire for a rational dialogue on this issue, so I'll stop engaging. I'll just close by saying I think you sell our politicians short - I think most will cheerfully, openly invite scrutiny as part of the jobs they've accepted, and your conviction that this scrutiny is more than they can handle is the true insult to them.

To work in media while also holding elected office means you've relinquished all claims to objectivity and should rightly be suspected of using your media position to promote your own political agenda rather than reporting balanced news.

That's just common sense. No one should trust the writing of a journalist who would be so sleazy as to create such a massive conflict of interest for themselves and their publication.

As to the question (which accused no one of anything, it merely asked a pertinent detail. You were, in fact, the only one to apply the word "corruption") we have a responsibility to examine FACTS like personal relationships once situtations like this one have been uncovered - that's part of determining what is, and is not, the truth. It's our job, and Adrian did it tactfully and responsibly in this case.

Finally, anyone who can't handle a question as simple, straightforward and legitimate as if or whether they have a relationship with someone accused of some very serious ethical breaches under the other person's watch, they should step out of the public eye.

If you're not willing to be open to public scrutiny, it's moronic for you to seek public office. If it's such a hurtful, insulting burden, leave the job to someone with thicker skin, who is capable of taking on ALL aspects of the job, including accountability. Public officials, elected and otherwise, have the responsibility to be open and transparent with the public who pays their wages. Getting up in arms over a relevant, reasonable question is neither open nor transparent.

Can you please quote, for me, the portion of comments in which he accused anyone of being corrupt, rather than living up to his ethical, global responsibility to question democratic leadership?

Moreover, the kind of questions being raised here go far beyond simple naivete, in my opinion. Awarding contracts without tender or council approval to senior city staff seems certain to raise questions in the most uninformed mind, if this is indeed what happened - if a sitting councillor can't understand that, I perforce question their competency to hold office. For the media not to question any such contract process would be inexcusable.

It is absolutely the media's right AND responsibility to demand answers to these questions - in fact, it's our reason for existing at all.

If there is no wrong-doing, these questions should threaten no one. When I see vitriolic, angry and accusatory responses like yours, I can't help but take it as evidence there's something to hide, and an indication that we need to dig deeper and work harder to ensure the truth comes out.

If people aren't prepared to accept the responsibility of holding office, and live up to the moral code detailed in city policy and provincial law, they have no business seeking or accepting said office. I'm personally  shocked that not every member of council is demanding an immediate, third-party investigation into this bizarre situation. I think not doing so is self-destructive and politically inept, not to mention harmful to the community as a whole. Making a mistake is okay. Trying to hide the possibility of mistake, rather than being open and transparent, is not.

On a final note, for a reporter or media member to seek municipal elected office would be, I believe (as do most journalists), a gross ethical violation and an eggregious insult to the public in general - to suggest they do so isn't intelligent or considered enough to warrant response.

Don't sons grow up to be misters, eventually, or do they remain "Hey, boy!" for the duration?

Lana's suggestion, with which you appear to agree (if I am not mistaken) is that a person has no grounds to complain about - or even question - a council decision unless one is prepared to run for council. Statements of the kind reflect a woeful ignorance of a representative democracy's essential principle.

A citizen of a democracy does not have to earn the right to question government. That right is there by virtue of a person's citizenship.

Elections do not impart rights, they impart responsibilities. A key responsibililty is to be accountable not only for the substance of decisions made, but also for the underlying rationale. It is the elected who are accountable to citizens, it is not the other way around. A big difference.

If no errors were committed, notwithstanding some rather serious questions, providing a step-by-step overview of the process by which contracts were awarded should not be a big deal for the mayor in his capacity as the municipality's Chief Executive Officer. If all is proper and done in compliance with policies and applicable laws, there is nothing to hide. It would clear up any misunderstandings and set the record straight.

I will agree with you, Mr. Profili, that standing in front of a crowd and accuse person X would not only be irresponsible, it would be downright stupid - and may well turn out to be costly. On the other hand, if errors were made (as the Mayor seems to acknowledge) citizens have a right to know the score. Not only what was done, but what steps have been taken, or are under consideration as a consequence of errors made. If actions were taken in contravention of the law or established contracts or policies, then council has a duty to take appropriate steps not only to prevent a repeat performance - and demonstrate to citizens how the new procedures will prevent a repeat performance - but also to inform citizens what actions have been taken, or are under consideration, to deal with the offending party.

That being said, a "water under the bridge" attitude and advice to "run for council if you don't like it" reflect an unbelievable ignorance. Councils are accountable to all citizens, even to nerds, not only to those whose names were included on past ballots.

Don't call me Mr. Profili.  I am not my father.   Secondly insinuating that someone is corrupt is both classless and insulting.  

I am glad you had fun at your meeting, but the problem started long before recent events.  More likely associated with the policy changes that some of the more intellegent readers have cited.  

If the clown show  wants to change something, Lana is bang on.  Pull your head out of......     The sand.       As if you check the law, I am certain that if the Mayor were to stand infront of a room and state that someone has been corrupt and pointed  fingers.  Not only would he be guilty of slander, you may share the tab,  when paying legal bills.  

Kootenay weather is often unpredictable.  This is normal and expected for the Kootenays - Mr. Mottishaw should know this by now as they have had the contract to maintain our roads for a number of years.

The problem is that staffing levels are kept at a minimum until the "unusual" happens and they have to call out extra casual staff to deal with the "unexpected". 

The bottom line is that Emcon does not have adequate resources to deal with the "unusual and unexpected" conditions in the Kootenays based on how they do business which has been to casualize the workforce.

When a significant snow fall happens there are trucks out there but the question is covering what expanse of area -  there are not enough regular trucks or drivers to deal with the road conditions in a timely manner when the "unexpected" or "unusual" happens. 

Sorry Mr. Mottishaw, your excuses are getting a bit old.