March 12, 2020
To Mayor and Council,
They say, “a picture is worth a thousand words,” yet to date only Dawn Luhning has replied to my March 2, 2020 email, that I indicated wouldn’t be an editorial.
Unfortunately your silence to my email of March 2, 2020, has forced me to rescind my offer to not publish the said editorial below, I had hoped we could have discussed these two positive options being done in the two mentioned cities.
Mayor and Councillors,
"Do you know what it takes to be a “good manager?”
Do you still think Mr. Puffalt and Mr. Montgomery took our complaint of August 15, 2018, seriously?
City of North Battleford 90 days, City of Regina 90 days and the City of Moose Jaw....indefinitely.
The answer to the question: A good manager would know the answer or finds out.
This is the reason I went public; there is a serious problem at city hall. Councillors if you can’t recognize this, your part of the problem.
"The best definition of ethics is: a system of moral principles and perceptions about right versus wrong. The social worker does not attempt to change the client system by imposing her or his values on the client system, but instead strives to: understand and respect the client values."
So councillors you will have by now had an opportunity to read editorial 5 - City Manager Jim Puffalt and Chief Montgomery, concerning bylaw 1908 city of North Battleford where Mr. Puffalt was city manager.
The other reference was a story in the Leader Post concerning, Bylaw No. 2016-2 Community Standards Bylaw a process that definitely deals with properties in Regina. This story was shared by my neighbour who also has a concern for the sale of their property.
Under the Community Standards Bylaw, a structure can remain boarded up for only 90 days. After 90 days the property is declared a nuisance and the city would open a nuisance case or a maintenance case (where an order is given to the property owner detailing which items on the property need to be repaired).
The picture I included with my email to you of March 2, 2020 was of rotten shingles blowing off the house in question, even though City Manager Puffalt indicated, “the roof would be repaired shortly.” Those words were from an update of October 10, 2018.
Code of ethics (Cities Act)
66.1(1) A council shall, by bylaw, adopt a code of ethics that applies to all members of the council.
(2) The code of ethics must define the standards and values that the council expects members of council to comply with in their dealings with each other, employees of the city and the public.(3) No member of council shall fail to comply with the city’s code of ethics.
(4) Compliance with the code of ethics does not relieve a member of council from complying with the other requirements of this Act.
(5) The code of ethics adopted pursuant to subsection (1) must:
(a) include the prescribed model code of ethics;
(b) comply with any prescribed requirements regarding adoption, updating and public accessibility; and
(c) set out the process for dealing with contraventions of the code of ethics.
So, Councillors, your ongoing silence draws into question not only your ethical responsibility but also draws into question your commitment to the citizens you serve.
Attention Councillors! The Cities Act says you are responsible for updating bylaws. Shouldn’t the citizens have a right to expect that we’re as important as Regina or North Battleford citizens when dealing with Derelict/Nuisance Properties?
By the way Councillors, check page 11 of Chief Montgomery’s Fire Safety Bylaw 5567; it’s turned on its side.
Councillors, could it be senior management does take city bylaws seriously, unless they want say, want to legalize their lack of enforcement say on a “nuisance property,” or say “charge citizens” a fee?
-- Carter Currie
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author, and do not necessarily reflect the position of this publication.
