Unfortunately a lot of people do not attend these meetings and this article proves that maybe we should all get ourselves out there for them in the future. If this much confusion went on at this meeting which obviously affects our tax dollars that we are paying and what is being done with them, then maybe they should hold another meeting. This way we can all make sure that everyone that is on the board and voting is a tax paying residence of the LWF area. I also agree with having all expenditures listed out to see where each dollar is going.
I as a tax payer feel that the L.W.F Rate Payers association should be Audited to show where all the money is being spent and where it is allocated. I find that the L.W.F is over budgeting for things that are being done instead of budgeting correctly and using the tax payers money more wisely.
I think the community should be more involved in the yearly meetings and more encouragement should be givin for us (the community) to get involved.
This is just one man’s opinion but i hope others will see this and agree.
In 1985 I was a member of the executive of what is now called the LWF Ratepayers Association. For over a year several members of the executive attempted to obtain information about the finances of the Windsor Junction Community Centre.
This was motivated by our request to have $1500 allocated from the LWF budget to help build a tot park on Lockview Road. We were advised by the “lifers” that there was no extra money and that all area rate funds were allocated to the WJCC. When we discovered that a ladies softball team was being funded by the LWF Ratepayers we were told that this was an “off campus” program supported by the WJCC. Paying for a small group of adults to play softball appeared an odd use of taxpayers funds and confirmed that not all funds were being spent at the WJCC as were had been told.
After being rebuffed in our efforts to have some of our tax dollars used to build a tot park on Lockview Road (at that time about $10,000 per year was being generated from Lockview Road area rateassessments) and frustrated in our efforts to obtain the information regarding the finances of the WJCC we decided something had to be done or we would never see any development in the community outside of the WJCC. With the support of former councillor Gordie Snow several community members formed an association in 1986 which was entiled the Lockview Area Residents Association (LARA). The association’s first chair was Michael Creighton, who remains an active volunteer in our community today.
Upon forming the association, Lockview Area residents have not had to pay an area rate. LARA”s funds came from first the former Halifax County’s and now HRM’s general tax budgets. Since that time the funds have been used to build tot parks, the bridge at the Locks and a tennis court among other worthwhile projects as well as fund an annual community picnic.
In terms of non LWF residents using the WJCC I can speak only for the experience of LARA. The LARA executive had approached the LWF executive several times over the years to see if some of the residents living in the LARA catchment area could individually pay the area rate to LWF and use the WJCC facility. The response was always in the negative and current assertion that any long time members moving out of the area with family ties in the LWF area could still maintain their WJCC membership is simply inaccurate, particularly in terms of any LARA residents. This may be different today but it certainly did not happen historically as being portrayed.
What I find interesting about the article is that it appears that the same issue of lack of transparency that existed in 1985 relative to the finances of the WJCC is still in play today some 25 years later. I should remind the readers that in 1985 there was no Privacy Act and the information was still not forthcoming from the board of the WJCC. I am of the opinion that most if not all of the information being requested today could be provided in a fashion that would not violate the Privacy Act.
It seems incredible that over the past several years well over a million dollars of ratepayer funds have funneled from the LWF area rate through to the Windsor Junction Community Centre board with what some are saying is a lack of transparency. This was the case in 1985 and appears to be the case in 2010. I have no knowledge of what took place in the intervening years but suspect that it was similar.
What the world learned with the banking fiasco in early 2009 in the United States and abroad was that the world’s finances had quietly drifted to the brink of disaster. This was primarily because not enough people demanded enough answers from the boards of banks as to how they operated and how they spent shareholders’ funds. In the case of banks some board members and employees were paid millions of dollars. In this instance it is difficult to ask volunteer boards for information because the volunteers often take it personally and feel accused of being less than honest when questioned. Volunteers are invaluable to the community and the down side is that if all volunteers walked off the job much of the progress in our towns would grind to a halt. That doesn’t mean the questions should not be asked.
Here are a few I would propose:
1. Does the WJCC board have a budget and is it approved by the LWF board?
2. Who makes the decisions and sets the budget for the WJCC board?
3. Are any positions on the WJCC board paid positions?
4. What are the management salaries, if any of the WJCC board?
5. How is the WJCC board elected or appointed and how long are the terms?
6. Who audits the books of the WJCC or LWF to ensure that there are proper receipts and approvals for all expenditures?
7. Are the constituting documents of the WJCC in order and up to date?
8. Was the annual meeting of LWF conducted is accordance with its bylaws?
The reality is that probably most people have no interest to invest the time to find out how their $100 or so LWF area rate funds are being spent and are quite happy with the service being provided. This doesn’t mean that those who would like to see how their area rate dollars are being spent should have to struggle to get the information. Additionally all boards. volunteer or not, should be conducted in accordance with their governing documents.
Steve, Your reporting is not quite correct. You suggested that all Lara projects were paid for by a yearly grant to the association when in fact the tennis court was constructed in part by funding obtained specifically for that project when I was in council and Michael Creighton and David Lewis were involved .The tot lot park was also constructed by LARA
Steve the tot lot constructed recently by LARA was supported by a grant from the province of 20,000 in addition to other funding over and above the general HRM tax rate and every cent can be accounted for unlike the continued lack of accountability at LWF.
The points and distinctions I was trying to make were multifacited:
1. Any spending by LARA was always open and easily accounted for in a clear and understandable way.
This was different from my experience when a member of LWF and apparently some LWF ratepayers are still having the same difficulty obtaining clear information today. There was always what I’ll call a hazy realtionship between LWF and the WJCC that seemed to do no more than muddy the waters.
I have no idea if during the period when you were councillor or MLA if you could see how all the money was being spent at the WJCC, but you were certainly in a better position to find out than most people. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the process worked when you were councillor. It has always seemed odd that so much money flowed through HRM via a tax rate established by so few people and with such apparent lack of control by HRM.
2. In terms of funding LARA does not pay an area rate for its budgetary needs. This is different from the practice at LWF. That was really my point in making the distinction between the two associations. Of course LARA also obtained funding from other sources and as you know you were quite helpful both as councillor and MLA to our association.
I was merely pointing out that LARA does not have an area and still manages to obtain funding from HRM. LWF has the option, as I understand it, not to have an area rate but prefers to continue to put an extra tax on its residents in order to maintain control of the usage of the Windsor Junction Community Centre. This may or may not be the case today but certainly was the case in years past.
3. For clarification, the tot park I was speaking about was constructed in 1986. I am familiar with the recent tot park project and the funding elements that helped make it happen.
My point in regards to any of the projects in the LARA catchment area was that as long as LARA remained part of LWF none would be pursued to be cost shared in the first place. They were always cost shared in one way or another and LWF had no interest in cost sharing projects outside of the WJCC grounds. Lockview area residents were contributing several thousand dollars a year to LWF and the decision was made by a vote in 1985 by a margin of 114-2 that we should no longer be a part of LWF if they refused to cost share even a $3000 project to the tune of $1500.
I believe my earlier historical report was accurate, just not complete. To detail a complete history of the practices of the various volunteer bodies that exist in our area of HRM would make a great novel. I was trying to give a short concise overview.
I think we agree about the lack of accountability at LWF.
As a new member of this board (Director) I have the same similar concerns raised by Steve Boyce but unfortunately I don’t have answers to some of the questions presented.
Confusion is the only word which comes to mind to describe the Dec. 6th AGM so I’ll be looking for more and clear answers when a Board meeting is held. At the very least, Board members should be able to adequately answer ratepayers questions and at this point I don’t believe they can.
This Board has to deal with all the issues/questions and communicate answers to the ratepayers via a newsletter, etc. in the near future if trust is to be earned. If the Board doesn’t deal with this in a reasonable time and manner then my time and effort will be spent elsewhere.
Some residents have asked me how non-ratepayers were able to nominate people to fill positions and vote at the meeting? This concerns me. “IF” this is true then this community needs to re-group and decide what to do with their area rate.
Firstly… This is a very well written Article…Great work District 2 News…
Secondly…the responses are very entertaining and informative…Thank you!
Lastly… I attended the meeting in December and I have the following impressions to share with you…
The money being allocated to any association from Taxpayers should always come with accounatibility…the impression I got was something was just not adding up…sorry for the pun…WJCC shoudl be forced to show where the taxpayers money is being spent and should be accountable for their spending…not with just a line item budget but with descriptions and receipts. I have been involved with community associations in the past that were funded by Tax Payers money and this was a must…why is WJCC excempt from this protocol.
It seemed to me that a lot of people showed up with preconceived notions as to what shape this meeting woudl take…there were a lot of youth at the meeting that spoke up and made kind of rude remarks to other members about the programs being run at the WJCC… I have used these services in the past and was very happy…I do not think anyone at the meeting implied or said anything about funding being cut off or reduced to WJCC but there sure appeared to people there who were under that impression…I think the meeting was trying to say…you get the taxpayers dollars…as taxpayers we have the RIGHT to know how our money is being spent and when the board overseeing this expenditure can not produce records…questions are going to be asked…People involved with WJCC as emploees – current and former along with Board members had their back up before the meeting started…That was certainly Curious
There appeared to be a few people there who were very informed about the by-laws and were quick to get the infamous “and/or” changed to “and” and then pushed to get Sandra Carr removed from the board…it apperas that some people have no respect or idea of what it takes to be a volunteer or be committed to a cause without compensation…plus it is very disturbing that the President was forced out because she was asking for an accountability of OUR MONEY PEOPLE.
There were people at the meeting that I have never seen in the community before who had a lot to say…my suspicion is some of these people were NOT EVEN RESIDENTS AND HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
That meeting needs to be thrown out…it was a farce…the board that was appointed should be dismantled and a new Meeting and Vote should take place… we…the general public need to be better informed what is happening in their own community…60 people from our community showed up…we should have this meeting at the new Recreational Center in the Gym and get thousands out…we need to more concerned about where our tax dollars go and who is controlling the purse strings…
WOW, First I would like to say that I am a new resident to this area and I live on Lockview Road. This seams like a real bag of snakes and I obviously need to become involved in the community in which I live. I need some clarity on the various organizations and as a result have some questions
First Question, am I part of LARA?
Second Question, is LARA a component of another association?
As a newbie to this area, and as someone that has no past vested interest my first instinct would be to have appropriate authorities involved to investigate financial practices. As for as the question dealing with non ratepayers ability to vote or not to vote, it seems rather academic; If you are not a ratepayer than you should have no influence on allocations of monies or who can sit on what boards.
Since you live on Lockview Road you are a member of LARA which is the acronym for Lockview Area Residents Association. LARA is not a component of another association although there is nothing preventing LARA from partnering with other volunteer community associations for the betterment of the larger area.
Its reason d’etre is for the betterment of the LARA catchment area and the greater Fall River area through promotion and participation in various community projects and activities.
Just one man, if you as you stated need any incentive to get involved in your association I would suggest you now have it. Steve, you are right , as an elected representative and as a private citizen I have tried to get accountability from the LWF and with the same measyre of success.
Unfortunately all too many politicians/ elected officials think along the lines of Steve Boyce’s political friend— “A wise experienced politician once said that nobody gives you power, you have to take it.” That is why we have the problems we have today and that is why politicians/ elected officials are the subject of so much distrust.
Every organization has a constitution/ bylaws/ Acts of incorporation, by which the “members” of the organization transfer powers to the individuals who they elected to lead the organization. Unfortunately once elected to those positions some individuals do in fact take additional powers and represent themselves and their own interests over the best interests of the individuals who elected them. These same individuals believe they are accountable to no one. That does not make them “wise”; it makes them morally deficient. I am sure Steve sees that trait displayed in one organization he currently serves on.
I have read all the columns and comments posted on the LWF Association and I have concluded the following:
a) The association is NOT being run with good, fundamental organizational discipline. It lacks sound principles and its leaders lack understanding of sound operational practices. It operates like a family business, relying on family and friends.
b) The relationship between the LWF and WJCC is too cozy and does not allow for proper independent oversight by the Board of the LWF. If the WJCC is a separate and distinct organization, as it seams to be, then there should be no LWF Board members serving as employees or directors of WJCC. That would be a potential conflict. A member in conflict cannot serve 2 masters.
c) The LWF Association appears to have all the necessary authority to do what needs to be done to bring about accountability and transparency. The Executive / Board just do not know how to make it happen or do not want to make it happen because of the things reflected in A) and B) above.
d) The bylaws were changed and approved. Bylaws are sacred, they are the law. It is scary that the executive and entire Board approved and brought forward a revised set of bylaws they did not understand. Once the bylaws were approved they are the law. There is no question that anyone who was a non member as defined by the bylaws should resign from the Board and anyone who is a nonmember is not to participate in any further business conducted at the meeting. Some comments reflect this as a technicality. Afraid not—can I go vote in NB because I live next door. Once “technicalities” are used to work around the bylaws then there are no bylaws. Sounds like a family and friends issue to me.
e) There are many comments about accountability and transparency, but when it came time to revise the bylaws, there was considerable secrecy. Would it not have been appropriate to advise and consult all members of the association about the revised bylaws?
Volunteers are very important to the community, but sometimes they get so close to the cause they miss the big picture. These volunteers deserve our thanks for making our community better. However I think their job would be easier if they accepted the need for openness and transparency as opposed to finding reasons not to do it
The quote about power I was referring to was in relation to the following concept:
My experience is that many of our elected officials defer too much to staff and forget that they have been elected by the residents to represent their wishes.
Staff at most levels of government act as if they have more authority and power than the elected officials. If the elected officials don’t exercise the authority and power entrusted them by their constituents and by default allow staff to make all the decisions and set the agenda they have no power.
If Barry Dalrymple allows staff to set the agenda for his area of HRM rather than listening to the wishes of his constituents he is not required and we are better off getting rid of our councillor and saving the salary. If Percy Paris allows staff to set the agenda for his area of the province rather than listening to his constituents we are better off getting rid of our MLA and saving the salary.
This is what is meant by taking the power. Our elected officials can no longer be content with sitting back and letting unelected bureaucrats determine the agenda. They have to seize the power they have been accorded by their office and use it for the good of all constituents. On the other hand perhaps they support the development plan being proposed for Laurie Park.
It seems to me that both Barry and Percy have been conspicuous by their silence on the Laurie Park issue. They use this website to advertise for themselves with our tax dollars. They should also take advantage of the site, like many of us, to post their thoughts on this issue for all of us to read.
Steve, , the Laurie Park issue is a Provincial issue ,and as you stated recently when excusing our MLA and MP from failed attendance at the LWF meeting, perhaps it is time for MLA Paris to come up big on this issue . IT is his jurisdiction. I have talked to Barry and it is quite clear where he stands.
I would like to get back to the discussion of the issues facing the LWF Association. Our councillor, in another article, has indicated there is very little he can do, so it is up to the members to force the Board to act. Gary, you are very active with this organization and in the community as a whole. Your Hinesight column was informative about what happened, but we have to move forward.
Above I posted some direct comments about the issues that need to be addressed, in my opinion. Gary, I suspect your voice carrys some weight with the LWF Board and I suspect the directors will listen to you.
Therefore I request that you review my conclusions and offer us, your comments, in the hope we can bring about change.
One thing I do not understand- why the bylaws had to be changed to bring about accountabliity and transparency? I have never heard of the bylaws preventing accountability or transparency. Sounds like stall tactics to me, by someone in power wanting to protect their power, or afraid of members really seeing what is going on. I think it would also be valuable if you could tell us the relationship between the old bylaws and the lack of accountability and transparency.
Given our current councillor believes this issue is beyond his scope maybe you can help lead us to action. The Board as a whole has a major hole to dig out of to bring about the changes that will restore the faith of the members.
Unfortunately a lot of people do not attend these meetings and this article proves that maybe we should all get ourselves out there for them in the future. If this much confusion went on at this meeting which obviously affects our tax dollars that we are paying and what is being done with them, then maybe they should hold another meeting. This way we can all make sure that everyone that is on the board and voting is a tax paying residence of the LWF area. I also agree with having all expenditures listed out to see where each dollar is going.
Is this the same Cheryl Newcombe that The Coast mentions in it’s October 2009 article about secret Halifax Council meetings?
http://www.thecoast.ca/RealityBites/archives/2009/10/29/council-sticks-to-secret-appointments
I as a tax payer feel that the L.W.F Rate Payers association should be Audited to show where all the money is being spent and where it is allocated. I find that the L.W.F is over budgeting for things that are being done instead of budgeting correctly and using the tax payers money more wisely.
I think the community should be more involved in the yearly meetings and more encouragement should be givin for us (the community) to get involved.
This is just one man’s opinion but i hope others will see this and agree.
In 1985 I was a member of the executive of what is now called the LWF Ratepayers Association. For over a year several members of the executive attempted to obtain information about the finances of the Windsor Junction Community Centre.
This was motivated by our request to have $1500 allocated from the LWF budget to help build a tot park on Lockview Road. We were advised by the “lifers” that there was no extra money and that all area rate funds were allocated to the WJCC. When we discovered that a ladies softball team was being funded by the LWF Ratepayers we were told that this was an “off campus” program supported by the WJCC. Paying for a small group of adults to play softball appeared an odd use of taxpayers funds and confirmed that not all funds were being spent at the WJCC as were had been told.
After being rebuffed in our efforts to have some of our tax dollars used to build a tot park on Lockview Road (at that time about $10,000 per year was being generated from Lockview Road area rateassessments) and frustrated in our efforts to obtain the information regarding the finances of the WJCC we decided something had to be done or we would never see any development in the community outside of the WJCC. With the support of former councillor Gordie Snow several community members formed an association in 1986 which was entiled the Lockview Area Residents Association (LARA). The association’s first chair was Michael Creighton, who remains an active volunteer in our community today.
Upon forming the association, Lockview Area residents have not had to pay an area rate. LARA”s funds came from first the former Halifax County’s and now HRM’s general tax budgets. Since that time the funds have been used to build tot parks, the bridge at the Locks and a tennis court among other worthwhile projects as well as fund an annual community picnic.
In terms of non LWF residents using the WJCC I can speak only for the experience of LARA. The LARA executive had approached the LWF executive several times over the years to see if some of the residents living in the LARA catchment area could individually pay the area rate to LWF and use the WJCC facility. The response was always in the negative and current assertion that any long time members moving out of the area with family ties in the LWF area could still maintain their WJCC membership is simply inaccurate, particularly in terms of any LARA residents. This may be different today but it certainly did not happen historically as being portrayed.
What I find interesting about the article is that it appears that the same issue of lack of transparency that existed in 1985 relative to the finances of the WJCC is still in play today some 25 years later. I should remind the readers that in 1985 there was no Privacy Act and the information was still not forthcoming from the board of the WJCC. I am of the opinion that most if not all of the information being requested today could be provided in a fashion that would not violate the Privacy Act.
It seems incredible that over the past several years well over a million dollars of ratepayer funds have funneled from the LWF area rate through to the Windsor Junction Community Centre board with what some are saying is a lack of transparency. This was the case in 1985 and appears to be the case in 2010. I have no knowledge of what took place in the intervening years but suspect that it was similar.
What the world learned with the banking fiasco in early 2009 in the United States and abroad was that the world’s finances had quietly drifted to the brink of disaster. This was primarily because not enough people demanded enough answers from the boards of banks as to how they operated and how they spent shareholders’ funds. In the case of banks some board members and employees were paid millions of dollars. In this instance it is difficult to ask volunteer boards for information because the volunteers often take it personally and feel accused of being less than honest when questioned. Volunteers are invaluable to the community and the down side is that if all volunteers walked off the job much of the progress in our towns would grind to a halt. That doesn’t mean the questions should not be asked.
Here are a few I would propose:
1. Does the WJCC board have a budget and is it approved by the LWF board?
2. Who makes the decisions and sets the budget for the WJCC board?
3. Are any positions on the WJCC board paid positions?
4. What are the management salaries, if any of the WJCC board?
5. How is the WJCC board elected or appointed and how long are the terms?
6. Who audits the books of the WJCC or LWF to ensure that there are proper receipts and approvals for all expenditures?
7. Are the constituting documents of the WJCC in order and up to date?
8. Was the annual meeting of LWF conducted is accordance with its bylaws?
The reality is that probably most people have no interest to invest the time to find out how their $100 or so LWF area rate funds are being spent and are quite happy with the service being provided. This doesn’t mean that those who would like to see how their area rate dollars are being spent should have to struggle to get the information. Additionally all boards. volunteer or not, should be conducted in accordance with their governing documents.
Steve, Your reporting is not quite correct. You suggested that all Lara projects were paid for by a yearly grant to the association when in fact the tennis court was constructed in part by funding obtained specifically for that project when I was in council and Michael Creighton and David Lewis were involved .The tot lot park was also constructed by LARA
Steve the tot lot constructed recently by LARA was supported by a grant from the province of 20,000 in addition to other funding over and above the general HRM tax rate and every cent can be accounted for unlike the continued lack of accountability at LWF.
Gary
The points and distinctions I was trying to make were multifacited:
1. Any spending by LARA was always open and easily accounted for in a clear and understandable way.
This was different from my experience when a member of LWF and apparently some LWF ratepayers are still having the same difficulty obtaining clear information today. There was always what I’ll call a hazy realtionship between LWF and the WJCC that seemed to do no more than muddy the waters.
I have no idea if during the period when you were councillor or MLA if you could see how all the money was being spent at the WJCC, but you were certainly in a better position to find out than most people. Perhaps you could enlighten us as to how the process worked when you were councillor. It has always seemed odd that so much money flowed through HRM via a tax rate established by so few people and with such apparent lack of control by HRM.
2. In terms of funding LARA does not pay an area rate for its budgetary needs. This is different from the practice at LWF. That was really my point in making the distinction between the two associations. Of course LARA also obtained funding from other sources and as you know you were quite helpful both as councillor and MLA to our association.
I was merely pointing out that LARA does not have an area and still manages to obtain funding from HRM. LWF has the option, as I understand it, not to have an area rate but prefers to continue to put an extra tax on its residents in order to maintain control of the usage of the Windsor Junction Community Centre. This may or may not be the case today but certainly was the case in years past.
3. For clarification, the tot park I was speaking about was constructed in 1986. I am familiar with the recent tot park project and the funding elements that helped make it happen.
My point in regards to any of the projects in the LARA catchment area was that as long as LARA remained part of LWF none would be pursued to be cost shared in the first place. They were always cost shared in one way or another and LWF had no interest in cost sharing projects outside of the WJCC grounds. Lockview area residents were contributing several thousand dollars a year to LWF and the decision was made by a vote in 1985 by a margin of 114-2 that we should no longer be a part of LWF if they refused to cost share even a $3000 project to the tune of $1500.
I believe my earlier historical report was accurate, just not complete. To detail a complete history of the practices of the various volunteer bodies that exist in our area of HRM would make a great novel. I was trying to give a short concise overview.
I think we agree about the lack of accountability at LWF.
As a new member of this board (Director) I have the same similar concerns raised by Steve Boyce but unfortunately I don’t have answers to some of the questions presented.
Confusion is the only word which comes to mind to describe the Dec. 6th AGM so I’ll be looking for more and clear answers when a Board meeting is held. At the very least, Board members should be able to adequately answer ratepayers questions and at this point I don’t believe they can.
This Board has to deal with all the issues/questions and communicate answers to the ratepayers via a newsletter, etc. in the near future if trust is to be earned. If the Board doesn’t deal with this in a reasonable time and manner then my time and effort will be spent elsewhere.
Some residents have asked me how non-ratepayers were able to nominate people to fill positions and vote at the meeting? This concerns me. “IF” this is true then this community needs to re-group and decide what to do with their area rate.
Firstly… This is a very well written Article…Great work District 2 News…
Secondly…the responses are very entertaining and informative…Thank you!
Lastly… I attended the meeting in December and I have the following impressions to share with you…
The money being allocated to any association from Taxpayers should always come with accounatibility…the impression I got was something was just not adding up…sorry for the pun…WJCC shoudl be forced to show where the taxpayers money is being spent and should be accountable for their spending…not with just a line item budget but with descriptions and receipts. I have been involved with community associations in the past that were funded by Tax Payers money and this was a must…why is WJCC excempt from this protocol.
It seemed to me that a lot of people showed up with preconceived notions as to what shape this meeting woudl take…there were a lot of youth at the meeting that spoke up and made kind of rude remarks to other members about the programs being run at the WJCC… I have used these services in the past and was very happy…I do not think anyone at the meeting implied or said anything about funding being cut off or reduced to WJCC but there sure appeared to people there who were under that impression…I think the meeting was trying to say…you get the taxpayers dollars…as taxpayers we have the RIGHT to know how our money is being spent and when the board overseeing this expenditure can not produce records…questions are going to be asked…People involved with WJCC as emploees – current and former along with Board members had their back up before the meeting started…That was certainly Curious
There appeared to be a few people there who were very informed about the by-laws and were quick to get the infamous “and/or” changed to “and” and then pushed to get Sandra Carr removed from the board…it apperas that some people have no respect or idea of what it takes to be a volunteer or be committed to a cause without compensation…plus it is very disturbing that the President was forced out because she was asking for an accountability of OUR MONEY PEOPLE.
There were people at the meeting that I have never seen in the community before who had a lot to say…my suspicion is some of these people were NOT EVEN RESIDENTS AND HAD NO BUSINESS BEING THERE!
That meeting needs to be thrown out…it was a farce…the board that was appointed should be dismantled and a new Meeting and Vote should take place… we…the general public need to be better informed what is happening in their own community…60 people from our community showed up…we should have this meeting at the new Recreational Center in the Gym and get thousands out…we need to more concerned about where our tax dollars go and who is controlling the purse strings…
Thank You
WOW, First I would like to say that I am a new resident to this area and I live on Lockview Road. This seams like a real bag of snakes and I obviously need to become involved in the community in which I live. I need some clarity on the various organizations and as a result have some questions
First Question, am I part of LARA?
Second Question, is LARA a component of another association?
As a newbie to this area, and as someone that has no past vested interest my first instinct would be to have appropriate authorities involved to investigate financial practices. As for as the question dealing with non ratepayers ability to vote or not to vote, it seems rather academic; If you are not a ratepayer than you should have no influence on allocations of monies or who can sit on what boards.
To New Resident – Welcome to Fall River.
Since you live on Lockview Road you are a member of LARA which is the acronym for Lockview Area Residents Association. LARA is not a component of another association although there is nothing preventing LARA from partnering with other volunteer community associations for the betterment of the larger area.
Its reason d’etre is for the betterment of the LARA catchment area and the greater Fall River area through promotion and participation in various community projects and activities.
I hope this answers your two questions.
Just one man, if you as you stated need any incentive to get involved in your association I would suggest you now have it. Steve, you are right , as an elected representative and as a private citizen I have tried to get accountability from the LWF and with the same measyre of success.
Unfortunately all too many politicians/ elected officials think along the lines of Steve Boyce’s political friend— “A wise experienced politician once said that nobody gives you power, you have to take it.” That is why we have the problems we have today and that is why politicians/ elected officials are the subject of so much distrust.
Every organization has a constitution/ bylaws/ Acts of incorporation, by which the “members” of the organization transfer powers to the individuals who they elected to lead the organization. Unfortunately once elected to those positions some individuals do in fact take additional powers and represent themselves and their own interests over the best interests of the individuals who elected them. These same individuals believe they are accountable to no one. That does not make them “wise”; it makes them morally deficient. I am sure Steve sees that trait displayed in one organization he currently serves on.
I have read all the columns and comments posted on the LWF Association and I have concluded the following:
a) The association is NOT being run with good, fundamental organizational discipline. It lacks sound principles and its leaders lack understanding of sound operational practices. It operates like a family business, relying on family and friends.
b) The relationship between the LWF and WJCC is too cozy and does not allow for proper independent oversight by the Board of the LWF. If the WJCC is a separate and distinct organization, as it seams to be, then there should be no LWF Board members serving as employees or directors of WJCC. That would be a potential conflict. A member in conflict cannot serve 2 masters.
c) The LWF Association appears to have all the necessary authority to do what needs to be done to bring about accountability and transparency. The Executive / Board just do not know how to make it happen or do not want to make it happen because of the things reflected in A) and B) above.
d) The bylaws were changed and approved. Bylaws are sacred, they are the law. It is scary that the executive and entire Board approved and brought forward a revised set of bylaws they did not understand. Once the bylaws were approved they are the law. There is no question that anyone who was a non member as defined by the bylaws should resign from the Board and anyone who is a nonmember is not to participate in any further business conducted at the meeting. Some comments reflect this as a technicality. Afraid not—can I go vote in NB because I live next door. Once “technicalities” are used to work around the bylaws then there are no bylaws. Sounds like a family and friends issue to me.
e) There are many comments about accountability and transparency, but when it came time to revise the bylaws, there was considerable secrecy. Would it not have been appropriate to advise and consult all members of the association about the revised bylaws?
Volunteers are very important to the community, but sometimes they get so close to the cause they miss the big picture. These volunteers deserve our thanks for making our community better. However I think their job would be easier if they accepted the need for openness and transparency as opposed to finding reasons not to do it
Barry
The quote about power I was referring to was in relation to the following concept:
My experience is that many of our elected officials defer too much to staff and forget that they have been elected by the residents to represent their wishes.
Staff at most levels of government act as if they have more authority and power than the elected officials. If the elected officials don’t exercise the authority and power entrusted them by their constituents and by default allow staff to make all the decisions and set the agenda they have no power.
If Barry Dalrymple allows staff to set the agenda for his area of HRM rather than listening to the wishes of his constituents he is not required and we are better off getting rid of our councillor and saving the salary. If Percy Paris allows staff to set the agenda for his area of the province rather than listening to his constituents we are better off getting rid of our MLA and saving the salary.
This is what is meant by taking the power. Our elected officials can no longer be content with sitting back and letting unelected bureaucrats determine the agenda. They have to seize the power they have been accorded by their office and use it for the good of all constituents. On the other hand perhaps they support the development plan being proposed for Laurie Park.
It seems to me that both Barry and Percy have been conspicuous by their silence on the Laurie Park issue. They use this website to advertise for themselves with our tax dollars. They should also take advantage of the site, like many of us, to post their thoughts on this issue for all of us to read.
One wonders what they are afraid of……………
Steve, , the Laurie Park issue is a Provincial issue ,and as you stated recently when excusing our MLA and MP from failed attendance at the LWF meeting, perhaps it is time for MLA Paris to come up big on this issue . IT is his jurisdiction. I have talked to Barry and it is quite clear where he stands.
I would like to get back to the discussion of the issues facing the LWF Association. Our councillor, in another article, has indicated there is very little he can do, so it is up to the members to force the Board to act. Gary, you are very active with this organization and in the community as a whole. Your Hinesight column was informative about what happened, but we have to move forward.
Above I posted some direct comments about the issues that need to be addressed, in my opinion. Gary, I suspect your voice carrys some weight with the LWF Board and I suspect the directors will listen to you.
Therefore I request that you review my conclusions and offer us, your comments, in the hope we can bring about change.
One thing I do not understand- why the bylaws had to be changed to bring about accountabliity and transparency? I have never heard of the bylaws preventing accountability or transparency. Sounds like stall tactics to me, by someone in power wanting to protect their power, or afraid of members really seeing what is going on. I think it would also be valuable if you could tell us the relationship between the old bylaws and the lack of accountability and transparency.
Given our current councillor believes this issue is beyond his scope maybe you can help lead us to action. The Board as a whole has a major hole to dig out of to bring about the changes that will restore the faith of the members.