Petition Arrives In Edmonton

Over the past couple of months, the buzz word around Chestermere seemed to be ‘petition’. Whether you started it, were helping to collect signatures, for it or against it….no matter where you went, these petitions were always close by. The first petition requesting the dissolution of CUI (Chestermere Utilities Inc.) was delivered to City of Chestermere CAO, Dr. Randy Patrick, in February but was deemed invalid as petitions can only be generated regarding a bylaw.
Shortly after the first petition kicked off, a second one emerged from the same creator, Laurie Bold. In a previous interview, Bold stated that after years of noticing increases in her utilities and taxes that she felt she needed to do something. The second petition was organized requesting that the Minister of Municipal Affairs conduct an inquiry into the conduct of the City of Chestermere council.
On March 24, 2016 the second petition was delivered to the Alberta Legislature in Edmonton with petition supporters reporting they gathered 5,400 signatures. Bold indicates: “The people have lost faith and confidence in their governing council. The residents have had enough and we are appealing for help; signatures were obtained from lawyers, accountants, realtors, developers, planners and many Chestermere residents.”
In an interview with the Mayor, Matthews states: “Council is very frustrated as their attempts to meet or speak with the petition creator and close supporters went rebuffed.”
The petition creators assert: “When I first started the petition back in January I received a private message on Facebook from Jenn Massig letting me know she was available if I had any concerns. I replied and thanked her and told her I thought I had enough information at the moment”.
The group also heard from Councillor Heather Davies, but claim “I received a few private messages on Facebook from Heather Davies which I found to defensive which is not a great way to start a conversation. Councillor Davies informed me that the information I was posting was not correct, so I asked her to please tell me what information that I had posted was not correct and I would be happy to re-check it and if I find it is not correct I would remove it and also offer up a public apology for the not correct information that I had posted. I found she talked in circles to me not really being forth right with me which confused and irritated me. I also told her I would be willing to meet with them to speak one on one…. not seven on one. There was no other offer to meet one on one. I will not put myself in a situation of seven said what one did not and have our conversation all twisted around. Also my contact information is well known to everyone in Chestermere…address and phone numbers. I never received even one phone call from any of them…just to be clear”.
Both Councillor Massig and Councillor Davies confirmed that they did reach out to Bold. Councillor Davies said, “Yes I contacted her three times and advised her that I would meet with her anytime. I was then blocked on Facebook by her”.
Councillor Massig added, “I contacted her (Laurie Bold) via Facebook where she responded. I also reached out by phone, left a message but never heard back. I also told both Patricia Brandt and Al Kersch that I had been trying to reach out, but with no luck”.
The angered residents went on to say, “The time for talking has long passed us now. We have been petitioning for two months. They were hoping we were all just idiots without a plan. But we showed them otherwise.”
Bold went on to say “I contacted the office of the Minister of Municipal Affairs on Friday March 25th, the day after the petition was delivered, to get clarity on some information.”
Shannon Greer, Press Secretary for the Minister did confirm that on March 24th, 2016 the petition was received in their office and when asked about the next steps, the following was provided.
“When a petition is received, the Minister designates (by ministerial order) a ministry staff member to carry out the duties of a Chief Administrative Officer (CAO) for purposes of verifying its sufficiency. The designated CAO must report to the Minister on the sufficiency within 30 days after the date on which the petition is filed. It should be noted that this CAO does not have administrative power over the municipality – CAO is simply the title of the person verifying the petition”, says Greer.
“If the petition is sufficient, the Minister may appoint an inspector to carry out an inspection of the municipality. If the petition is not sufficient, the petitioner’s representative and the municipality are advised accordingly, and no further action is generally taken”, explained Greer.
Inspectors are generally appointed by contracting the services of an independent consultant through a request for proposal process. Alternatively, ministry staff may be appointed as inspectors.
An inspection normally includes, but is not limited to:
· A review and evaluation of bylaws and key policies for adequacy, relevancy, consistency and conformity with legislation.
· A review and evaluation of the structure of council committees.
· A review and evaluation of the organizational structure of the municipal administration.
· A review and evaluation of process and procedures used to prepare for council meetings.
· Attendance and evaluation of the conduct of a council meeting.
· A review and evaluation of the process for preparation and approval of council meeting minutes, and a review of recent minutes.
· A review and evaluation of the financial status of the municipality.
· Interviews with councillors and chief administrative officer.
· Interviews with staff or residents.
Greer added, “After the inspection is completed, the inspector is required to make a report to the Minister and additionally, if the inspection was made at the request of council, to the council. In order to ensure that the inspection process is open and transparent, the inspection report is generally presented in an advertised public meeting at, or shortly following, the time that the report is made to council”.
Another large point of uncertainty was whether there is a cost to do an inspection. Petition organizers made statements that there was no cost and that members of council were telling residents there is a cost to cause them worry, while Mayor Matthews and members of city council stated there would be a fee.
Press Secretary Greer confirmed that there is in fact costs that will incur should an inspection be carried out, but added that since this petition has not yet been deemed sufficient, the amount of that cost could not yet be confirmed.
So now we wait. As Press Secretary Greer mentioned, the assigned CAO now has thirty days to decide whether this petition is deemed sufficient.