Springwater: this council’s legacy – lack of communication and lack of transparency

Letter to Springwater News August 27 2013
I had to leave the August 26th combined Springwater Council Planning Meeting early and missed Councillor Webster’s introduction and responses to questions I asked at the July meeting regarding his draconian notice of motion.
For whatever reason aside from some of my writings, I am surprised at the extent this council is moving to gag the public and to reduce the engagement of the public.

We have reduced the council meetings by 50% which might have been triggered by a desire by some officials to have extended winter vacations and avoid a breach of the absence from meetings procedural bylaw. Since some councilors have complained about the amount of last minute reading prior to a council meeting, how does it make sense to double the reading?
The intent of the 10-minute question period at the beginning of council which was one of my commitments when I ran for mayor was always intended to be an open session and limited to a time period. The attempt to narrow it to only items on the agenda in my opinion is to stay away from controversial issues like the unwanted mega-developments in Midhurst. The Mayor suggested last night that there is an opportunity to request a delegation but she failed to mention that the requests can be rejected. This is similar to the request from Sandy Buxton that a letter she sent be included in the correspondence section of the council agenda. The Clerk rejected the request. How is any of this transparent and open?
My opinion is that this is an attempt at controlling comment in an effort to have a pre-emptive strike and silence opposition to those seeking re-election a year from now. Does Webster, Collins and McLean the apparent main supporters of controlled information really think they can gag the electorate by their closed minded “My way or the Highway” approach.
Perry Ritchie apparently made the most succinct comment about the Webster SLAPP suit notice of motion, “If you can’t stand the heat, get out of the kitchen.”
Effectively the Webster/McLean notice of motion wants you and I to pay for a lawyer to chase people like me when I write opinions such as this. Will it pay for the defense of those that they chase? Not likely! No other level of government pays for individual’s legal fees when unfavourable comments are made, as it is a personal matter. I do find it ironic in that Webster himself at the meeting when referring to my July questions stated that there were no slanderous remarks or libelous statements. As a heads up, if you sue me, I will counter sue the Township for harassment. How is that a benefit to the other taxpayers?
The only councilors that I witness that seem to consistently have the best interest of Springwater and its residents in mind when making their decisions are Hanna, McConkey and Ritchie. They focus at the real issues that impact the ratepayers not personal matters.
However don’t take my word for it, as this is one man’s opinion. Come to the council meetings and form your own conclusions and put pressure on your elected representative to focus on the issues that affect Springwater and ride above the petty beefs I see with my grandchilden when they say, “Mommy, Mommy Johnny looked at me the wrong way or he called me a sissy.” Please, let’s grow up and earn the $80,000 to $120,000 we pay each of our council for being our elected representative during the term.
Bill French
Grenfel Road

More information:
Webster answers French
Webster’s statement on motion
French comments