Kim,

You make a compelling case that councilors are not highly trained in every aspect of managing an organization the size of the Township, and that you should (actually “must”) rely on your highly trained staff to make the technical decisions based on your guidance.

Of course, when you charge the staff with “protecting groundwater”, they make recommendations which you (with, presumably, no experience in groundwater protection practices) vote down based not on your knowledge of the subject, but as a shameless grab for rural votes in a township where 80% of the residents are non-rural.

Get off that horse, it’s getting a little high.
R C
R C | 02.05.08 - 9:40 am | #

This article is very well written, and exposes exactly where the problem lies with township budgeting. The idea that some people have that council members should examine the budgets presented by each of the township's departments is absolutely wrong footed and is simply not the correct practice. The money required to operate the township efficiently and within the bounds of the economic climate of the day should be presented to the administration, and then each department can present their case for their share of it. Apparently Councilor Richter is the only one with knowledge of good business practices. I am completely surprised that the Langley Advance publisher/editor would not recognise their error on this subject, because they must certainly be given an operating budget by upper management like any other well run corporation.

The nonsense that we hear and read about, regarding other municipalities increasing their taxes does not justify what Kurt and his sheep are doing with their proposed tax increases. They in fact are only highlighting their ignorance, and betraying our trust.

Voters are going to have to think more about who they vote for if they expect anything different in the coming years. The failings among members of this group should be a wake up call, that more capable (or perhaps more diligent) peoiple are required on council.
Tinkle | 02.05.08 - 10:49 am | #

That's it Richter....stand and defend you stance. The problem here is you took a ill-fated stance to begin with. As I see it from my lowly position 4% of this year's budget was on things you, yes YOU platformed for! That would be pulic safety....police and full-time fire. The actual budget increase is 2% les or than the CPI. Does this mean you are against further full-time fire and inproving our policing! You will have to defend this stance in November and in the meantime the firefighters are well aware you have struck out against them. The union members are ticked off with your lack of support for them! It takes money to improve public safety - it is too bad this won't be big on your platform....in fact it may lead to your downfall. It is time you looked at the whole picture not that of your small band of advisors.
Wink | 02.05.08 - 12:30 pm | #

Wonder how the Advance Editor would like the Canwest Board of Directors out somewhere in Eastern Canada to rewrite his editorials line by line? Or maybe that is exactly the root of his problem, why he can not grasp basic business 101, exactly like this council can't. Or is he just simply protective and supportive of his staff reporters? Past and present though?
Wondering | 02.05.08 - 3:26 pm | #

Wondering,
You bring up a good point. I think the Advance editor has allowed his dislike for Kim Richter to cloud nis better judgement. In the position he holds, he knows darn well that he does not call the shots budgetwise. He submits his request based on his wish list and hopes for the best based on his anticipated revenues like any other department manager.
Methinks | 02.05.08 - 7:27 pm | #

OOPS! Now the Timnes editor has a point too! Maybe a bit early here but things aren't looking rosy on the PR front Methinks!
Wink | 02.06.08 - 11:11 am | #

I love your comments Wink regarding the "Timnes" and your concern for "pulic" safety. It's wonderful to see the public school system has "learned you so good". I bet this fool is teaching our kids in the school system.
Winkdum
Winkdum | 02.07.08 - 9:00 am | #

It is my opinion that both of our local papers are very careful about opposing the Township or the City elected officials. From what I have seen in a few other instances, this can be called good judgement in smaller local editions.

City halls are a good source of revenue as well as a constant supply of news and a steady source of worthy article material. The adage is: Don't bite the hand that feeds you, and it applies no differently here. It is also an understandable situation perhaps, as long as it's not overplayed.

A good example of a similar situation, can be experienced if a person tries to hire a lawyer within a small town to take on a case seeking money from the local municipal administration. If that lawyer is wise, he will refer the person to a lawyer from another jurisdiction. Like any other businesman of the community, they have to worry about the reactions from local politicians. They must also take into consideration their standing with fellow Rotarians, Golf club members, Bridge clubs, churches, and countless other ways to hurt their reputation and long term good will. The saying goes, that in the big city you have to be endearing, but in the small ones you must be ENDURING.

The opinions of our local newspaper editors should be examined in the same way that other letter writers are scrutinized. They certainly can't be expected to have any more wisdom than the rest of us. If their point of view sounds unreasonable in view of the known facts, just pass on it. Before you do though, it's worth reading between the lines as well. Heck, don't we do that with all letters in the editorial page. Well some anyway!

I have to say though, that Richter's article made much more sense from where I sit.
Tinkle | 02.07.08 - 8:28 pm | #