ProActive Rants

Saturday, December 11, 2010

Taking advantage of those in need to make money -comment.

Insanity nation- an interesting point of view

If you're not mentally ill, you're just not trying hard enough.

The shrinks have finally succeeded in slapping a label on nearly everyone, with a new government survey finding that 45 million Americans suffer from some form of mental illness, including 11 million with "serious" problems.

In all, that's 20 percent of all adults and 30 percent of the 18-25 age group.

Look, I don't need a study to know there are plenty of crazies out there... but 45 million? No way.

Shrinks have managed to turn every quirk and flaw into a disorder with drugs, twice-weekly therapy sessions, drugs, group meetings, drugs, Internet support forums and drugs.

It's the biggest scam going, with millions of Americans now caught up in an endless loop of drugs and treatments they don't need for normal, harmless conditions that don't hurt anyone.

So here's the real deal: If you've got something going on that's hurting yourself or those around you, seek help from a real doctor.

But if you think you're ill just because some shrink told you so, do yourself a favor and tell him where to stick his Diagnostic and Statistical Manual instead.

Causing the shrinks to shrink,

William Campbell Douglass II, M.D.

--

Hollecrest & Associates Inc -"Turnaround Consultants" .

Sunridge Lodge "Back to Eden" quality 24/7 care
261 Oakhill Drive, Brantford backtoeden.ontario@gmail.com
"Building elder peer communities that are cozy,caring and comfortable" -

Brant Positive Action Group -a positive community affirmative action group that promotes goodwill and timely cost effective creative solutions to enhance the competitive well being of Brant Brantford and Six Nations

Friday, December 10, 2010

Fwd: [FAIR Newsletter] OAG report on Integrity Commissioner – a devastating indictment

What is your position on this ?

OAG report on Integrity Commissioner – a devastating indictment

The Auditor General, Sheila Fraser, released yesterday the results of her investigation into the the conduct of the government whistleblower watchdog, Integrity Commissioner Christiane Ouimet – an investigation that was prompted by complaints from three of Ouimet's former employees. These findings amount to a devastating indictment of the Commissioner's conduct.

Fraser concluded that the three areas of complaint were founded:

that the Commissioner failed to perfom her mandated functions, showing great reluctance to accept or investigate cases, failing to establish proper procedures for handling cases, and refusing to investigate for reasons that were not supported by the available evidence
that she engaged in inappropriate conduct towards her staff – that she "yelled, swore, berated, marginalized and intimidated" certain of her employees
that she engaged in reprisals against employees, in one case devoting significant resources to a bogus security investigation against a former employee whom she suspected of complaining about her.

Fraser also reported separately to Treasury Board about allegations related to performance pay decisions, and referred to the Privacy Commissioner violations of the Privacy Act by Ouimet that she uncovered.

FAIR's analysis

The importance of Auditor General Sheila Fraser's thorough investigation cannot be overstated. Over the past three years FAIR has repeatedly criticized the inadequacy of the law and the lack of results from Christiane Ouimet's office. We are pleased to see our concerns validated and to understand better why this office accomplished nothing.

It is ironic that this commissioner was a role-model for the types of behaviour that she was employed to help drive out of the public service: misconduct in the performance of her mandate; and reprisals against honest employees who objected to this.

OAG's findings lay bare at least three major failures:

A failure of the whistleblower legislation. It is noteworthy that OAG soon found that it could not even conduct its limited investigation effectively under the whistleblower act and decided to proceed under the Auditor General Act instead.
A failure of the appointments process. This commissioner did not suddenly turn into this type of person when appointed to this office – she had a track record which should have been examined. This is the kind of bad decision that so often results from secretive back-room deals.
A failure of oversight. This appalling situation continued for more than three years before being brought to light. The first complaint to OAG was more than two years ago – yet when Ouimet appeared before parliamentary committees she essentially got a free pass. Committee members asked her few tough questions because they had no idea what was going on.

Described by some as a 'reign of terror', Ouimet's actions over the past three years have had very serious negative consequences.

The worst is that instead of deterring wrongdoers she has emboldened them, since they could quickly see that her office presented no threat to them.

And instead of protecting honest public servants from reprisals, she has terrorized her own employees and abandoned to their fate those who came to her office for help: they soon learned that the safe harbour promised to them was an illusion. There is a human tragedy behind so many of the 228 complaints that she ignored, as we know only too well from the many calls we have received from desperate whistleblowers.

Sheila Fraser's description of the lax and arbitrary manner in which cases were disposed of, and the bizarre reasons given for refusals, suggest a contempt for due process and a complete disregard for the plight of many of these truth-tellers who had been brave enough to come forward.

Some of the details revealed by the report are quite surreal. For example, Ouimet launched an investigation of an employee who had left 6 months before because she suspected (incorrectly) that he had complained about her. In the process she compiled four binders of information on him containing more than 375 pages, circulated at least 50 emails about him, and engaged at least six of her 20 staff in this task. She also attempted to get access to the personnel files of this person (and three others) from previous employers and shared confidential personal information about him with others within and outside the public service.

For those who, like us, wondered what the Commissioner was doing with her time – since her office seemed to be doing nothing – here perhaps is part of the answer.

Further revelations to come

There is a lot more information still to come out about what was going on within this office – and across the federal government.

At least two Parliamentary committees have an obligation to examine and learn from this catastrophe – Government Operations for the operational aspects, and Public Accounts for the legislative aspects. The Public Accounts committee has apparently decided already to call Mme Ouimet to appear before it on Tuesday.

We will hear in due course from the Privacy Commissioner the results of her investigation into Ouimet's actions, and the Treasury Board will be under great pressure to release the results of its investigations into allegations of improper performance pay decisions by Ouimet.

There are also the dozens of public servants who went to this office for help – submitting a total of 170 complaints of wrongdoing and 58 complaints of reprisal. When their cases are re-examined properly there will surely be many more investigations, followed by more exposures of wrongdoing within government departments.

In addition many people who have been silent while waiting for Fraser's findings can now speak out publicly, knowing that their concerns have been vindicated. These include former PSIC employees such as Normand Desjardins (who submitted the first complaint) and Pierre Martel, the acting Commissioner who left within weeks of Ouimet's arrival.

It is noteworthy that, although FAIR has received a steady stream of calls from whistleblowers over the past three years, we never heard from any PSIC staff – until this audit was announced. Now we are in contact with several former employees – some still very fearful and insisting upon complete anonymity – who say that there is yet more more to this story that needs to be told.

Actions required

As recently as October 25, after the OAG audit was announced, President of the Treasury Board Stockwell Day assured the public of his confidence that PSIC "continues to be a safe and independent agency for public servants to bring concerns about wrongdoing in the workplace without fear of reprisals". How was he so badly briefed?

Hopefully Fraser's report will erase the government's past denials that there is a problem, and it will then become possible to have sensible discussions on the Hill about how to fix this mess.

So one of the first things that needs to happen is a frank admission by the government of the magnitude of the problem. Its much-touted "ironclad" protection for whistleblowers, the core of its Accountability Act, is a complete shambles – a bad law compounded by a bad choice of commissioner.

The Liberals also need to avoid turning this situation into a purely partisan debate, since their track record is no better: after promising during their successful 1993 election campaign to clean up government and protect whistleblowers, they reneged and even blocked several private members bills. Only when forced into a corner by the Gomery Inquiry did they introduce legislation – a pitifully inadequate bill that never came into force.

Minister Day's statement today – that he 'assumes' the acting Commissioner will now review all the old files – raises serious concerns.

The current acting Commissioner Joe Friday was Ouimet's long-standing senior legal counsel. In this role he was responsible for reviewing all cases and providing guidance to the Commissioner regarding the legal basis for her decisions. Is it reasonable to expect him to review his own work?

The government must also realize that this review will be a massive task, since it involves essentially re-doing three years of work – the work that this office of more than 20 people was supposed to be doing. This will require an entire team of people, who must not only be competent, but must also be independent of those who did the original work.

Going forward, we see at three major processes that need to be initiated:

The search for a new Commissioner – this time using a public, merit-based appointment process, not the type of secretive back-room process that led to Mme Ouimet's selection and the glowing endorsement of her as the ideal candidate.
A root-and-branch reform of the current deeply-flawed legislation, which was condemned by FAIR and many others even before it came into force. This law creates so many barriers and pitfalls for whistleblowers that most will fare just as badly under a new Commissioner, whose hands will be tied until the law is rewritten.
A complete, thorough and independent re-examination of all the past cases, and thorough investigations of wrongdoing and reprisals where warranted.

There also need to be consequences for those who perpetrated this massive obstruction of justice – and not just the Commissioner. Other senior PSIC staff who willingly collaborated in depriving whistleblowers of due process – and effectively assisted in the cover-up of suspected departmental wrongdoing – need to be disciplined.

This office was created to punish and thus deter wrongdoers, as well as to protect whistleblowers and make them whole after reprisals. These same goals must be pursued in the efforts to clean up the current fiasco. We cannot allow yet another scandal in which the wrongdoers retire in comfort while the truth-tellers have to lick their wounds and adjust to straightened circumstances.

The USA began protecting whistleblowers more than 30 years ago. The UK has had effective protection for truth-tellers for more than a decade. Even former Communist-bloc countries like Bulgaria have made important strides. Meanwhile Canada has been pretending – but doing nothing serious – for 17 years.

This government, with assistance from Mme Ouimet, has brought about a spectacular meltdown of whistleblower protection. On the issue of protecting honest employees, which is central to the entire process of transparency and accountability, we are now the laughing stock of the developed world.

Canadians deserve better.

FAIR looks forward to assisting all sincere efforts to fully understand what went wrong and to develop a way forward. We will work with the government, opposition leaders and any other interested parties to help recover from this body blow to the integrity of our democracy.

We hope that this time around the government will pay attention to the expert advice available from ourselves and others to create a system that's not just for show, but one that will work to protect the public interest.

David Hutton
Executive Director

Read the full text of the Auditor General's report (pdf)

About FAIR

Federal Accountability Initiative for Reform (FAIR) promotes integrity and accountability within government by empowering employees to speak out without fear of reprisal when they encounter wrongdoing. Our aim is to support legislation and management practices that will provide effective protection for whistleblowers and hence occupational free speech in the workplace. FAIR is a registered Canadian charity.

FAIR is a volunteer-run charity with slender resources. If you feel that our work is worth supporting, please consider making a donation.

Unsubscribe from this newsletter

Knowledge is power -how did we do ?

A easy to use useful interactive tool that makes comparisons easy for competitive reviews of city or community services. Objective information , third party administered makes performance benchmarking easier

New Web Site Graphically Presents the Finances of 130 Municipalities
As of December 3, 2010, the Frontier Centre's living database of municipal financial statistics contains graphically presented data and comparisons of municipal finances. Frontier's David Seymour explains why you cannot have it three ways at once with any business, including Crown corporations.

This is a useful tool to compare results of the communities we live in :

http://www.lgpi.ca./report/ontario/brantford/2009

As we are moving into the new council and new budget process ,maybe this information can be used to do even better . It is our community to grow and together make it prosper .

Tuesday, December 07, 2010

A tax saving strategy that helps charities

Worth a look http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/personal-finance/tax-matters/a-donation-strategy-to-help-shelter-income/article1821238/

In the 2000s, tax shelters evolved and donation tax shelters became the rage. Many were buy-low-donate-high schemes where you'd purchase something for one price then donate it to charity and receive a donation receipt for a much higher value. The Canada Revenue Agency isn't exactly thrilled about these.

Interestingly, not all donation tax shelters should be painted with the same brush. Some are different. Some legitimately help charities.

Recent tax saving structure There's a donation tax strategy, designed by EquiGenesis Corp. and their legal team, that is worthy of some mention. Over the past seven years since it was first introduced, it has distributed $14.7-million to charities in Canada, with significantly more expected over the next decade.

Now, before I go on, I want to emphasize that this strategy does come with tax risk. There's the likelihood that the CRA will audit the 2010 version of this strategy, and the risk that taxpayers could be reassessed.

Having said this, I like the fact that the total cash to be distributed to charities over the life of this tax structure will be greater than the donation receipts issued to the taxpayers who participate. This gives the strategy more legitimacy than many. It also helps that this strategy is fully on the taxman's radar already. It was audited by the CRA for 2005 and 2006, and was given a clean bill of health subsequent to those audits.

How it works

There are basically two phases to this tax structure. The first is that the taxpayer will make an investment in a limited partnership. The second involves a donation to charity. It's a 10-year program so that, at the end of 10 years, your investment is wound-up and you are expected to receive a cash distribution (although not guaranteed).

Specifically, the investor will borrow money to invest in a limited partnership. This will provide the investor with annual deductions on his tax return for interest costs on the debt and financing charges.

Once the investor acquires the limited partnership units, he uses those units as collateral on a second loan, and he donates those loan proceeds to charity. There is no deduction available for the interest on this second loan, but the individual investor will receive a sizable donation receipt. So the tax savings in the first year can be significant.

Part of the funds that are invested in the limited partnership are set aside and invested in a portfolio that is designed to grow over the 10-year program. At the end of 10 years, the funds in the portfolio are expected to be sufficient to pay off the loans. This is part of the risk of the structure. If that portfolio does not grow sufficiently, the investor may have to make up the difference to pay off the loans. The fact that there is some risk to the structure makes it more palatable to the taxman.

At the end of the day, the net cash in the investor's pocket from the tax savings and cash distributed in year 10 is expected to be higher than the cash outlay, with most of the tax savings coming up front in the first year.

If you can help charities and save more tax at the same time, it's worth a look. But before jumping into any tax-structured program, be sure to have a tax specialist review the program on your behalf.

Thursday, November 25, 2010

What is rich -an interesting perspective and food for thought

Go Ahead, Tax the Rich, Just as Long as It's Not Me
Cliff Ennico
A lot of people are confused right now about Congress' plans to raise taxes (more precisely, eliminate the Bush-era tax cuts) for people with incomes of $250,000 per year or more.

"How can anyone argue against a tax increase for rich people?" I've heard people ask. "After all, they can afford it more than middle-class people can. And raising these taxes will generate $700 billion in revenue for the government over the next 10 years without anyone suffering too badly."

There's nothing wrong with that logic. Since 1913, the federal government has been committed to a program of "progressive" taxation -- basically, the more you make, the more taxes you pay. Aside from affordability, many people believe that wealthier people have a social obligation to subsidize government benefits for those who are less well off (and besides, there are so few rich people that their votes at election time don't count for much).

The problem comes about in defining precisely who is "rich" and who isn't. There's an old saying: "A rich person is anyone who makes more than I do." In other words, it's OK to increase taxes on the rich as long as I myself am not included in the definition of "rich."

I have always had a problem with a progressive tax system that is based solely on people's income. The reason is that I have always lived in the New York City metropolitan area, where the cost of living is extremely high. A lot of people I know make more than $250,000 a year, and they are outraged by the notion that they are so rich that they can afford a significant tax hike.

To understand the shortcomings of a progressive tax system based solely on income, take the following two situations:

-- Person A lives in rural Kansas, in a sprawling family farmhouse with no mortgage. Person A has an annual pretax income of $150,000, has no dependents and has average annual expenses of $30,000.

-- Person B lives in midtown Manhattan, in a cramped two-bedroom condo with two mortgages and two children in private schools (not because Person B is a snob, but because his kids stand a better chance of surviving to adulthood than if they were in New York City's public schools). Person B has an annual pretax income of $300,000 and has average annual expenses of $270,000.

Who would you say is the "richer" of the two? Most of us would say Person A, and we would be right from an economic point of view. Person A makes half as much as Person B, but has four times the discretionary income of Person B ($120,000 versus $30,000) because of Person A's low expenses.

However, under our current tax system, Person B is considered to be "richer" than Person A, and is taxed at a higher rate. If the Bush-era tax cuts for high-income people are not extended, Person B will see a significant increase in his taxes. The tax increase for Person B may be enough to wipe out his meager discretionary income and may threaten his personal liquidity. Meanwhile, Person A, who could more easily afford a tax increase because of his high annual discretionary income, continues to enjoy a "windfall" from his continued low tax rate.

The big assumption here, of course, is that all of Person B's expenses are necessary and unavoidable, and not the result of irresponsible luxury spending. In my example, I think they would be -- New York City has the highest cost of living, real estate costs, and state and local taxes of just about anyplace in America. And anyone who knows anything about New York City's public schools would send their kids to private schools in a heartbeat if they lived there. Frankly, there isn't much room for Person B to cut back on his living expenses.

There isn't any effective way for the government to base taxes on "discretionary income" -- this varies widely from individual to individual, and somebody's "necessary" expense is somebody else's "luxury." ("After all," I can hear some readers thinking, "nobody's forcing Person B to live in Manhattan" -- except perhaps his employer).

But if the government's goal is to allocate tax burdens to those best able to bear them, I think a better approach would be to base our tax system upon people's assets -- what they're worth after taking expenses into account -- rather than just their income. With a tax on individual net worth (or perhaps a progressive income tax that is adjusted or "weighted" to reflect a person's overall assets), Person A would pay higher taxes than Person B, resulting in a much more fair and equitable outcome.

If as a business owner you make a significant income but are working 24/7 in your business and are up to your ears in legitimate business debts, you are not "rich," yet the government thinks you are. It's time for that mentality to change.

Cliff Ennico (crennico@gmail.com) is a syndicated columnist, author and former host of the PBS television series "Money Hunt."

--

Wednesday, November 24, 2010

Target: New business culture needed -Rejecting Subsidy, Shunning Dependencyfrom Frontier Centre

Rejecting Subsidy, Shunning Dependency
Ben Eisen's study of "stealth equalization" provides further evidence for the new movement of Atlantic Canadians who understand that federal subsidies undermine their economic capacity for self-reliance and foster dependency. Frontier's Research Director Marco Navarro-Genie discusses how the notion of dependency is being restored to its non-ideological meaning.

--

Tuesday, November 23, 2010

Interesting food for thought on property rights

Private Property Is Nothing To Fear http://www.fcpp.org/

An economic study of successful First Nations is being held in suspicion through erroneous thinking about the notion of private property. Aboriginal policy analyst Joseph Quesnel looks at some common fallacies held about indigenous peoples in Canada and the notion of private property. He argues the debate about the appropriateness of property as an economic development tool should be free of misinformation.

Freedom Is The Destiny Of Native Canadians
A poll conducted by Frontier Centre reveals there is a hunger out in Indian Country for more democracy, starting with an elected grand chief in each province. Frontier's Aboriginal policy fellow Don Sandberg looks at a poll conducted by the Frontier Centre which highlights strong support across all Prairie First Nations for elected grand chiefs. First Nations clearly want democratic leadership and an end to the system where only chiefs select important leaders.

http://www.siegholleward1.com/
https://sites.google.com/site/bpagsiegholle

--

How to help small business create jobs

Here are two news bulletins for new members of Government

We are watching what you do

:
-- Small-business owners will not go out and hire people if by doing
so they have to reduce their take-home pay -- they will continue to do
most of the work themselves and pocket the profits.
-- Asking small-business owners to increase their expenses today in
return for a tax deduction or credit, which they won't see until next
year, is a non-starter -- it's like the Wimpy character in the old
Popeye cartoons, who "will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger
today."
For small-business tax breaks to be really effective, they will need
to put more money in small-business owners' pockets (or at least not
reduce their current ODI).
Here are the tax breaks America's small businesses really need to grow
and create jobs the way the government wants them to do. Newly elected
members , whatever your party affiliation, please take note.

-- Eliminate employment taxes for small payrolls. Most employee
salaries are artificially inflated because of Social Security,
Medicare and other employment taxes. This makes employees extremely
expensive and discourages small-business owners from hiring people. By
eliminating these taxes for payrolls of less than $5 million, three
wonderful things will happen:
-- Small businesses will actually go out and hire people, because they
can now pay them lower wages that employees can live on without
drastically reducing the owners' own incomes.
-- Employees will end up with more after-tax money in their pockets
(many existing employees will get a "de facto" wage increase), which
will encourage them to spend more on stuff.
-- Small-business owners will no longer have to pay huge sums to
bookkeepers, accountants and payroll services to help them keep track
of the byzantine employment tax rules.

I would also recommend that in adopting this law, government
eliminate these taxes on the owners' "self-employment income" as well.
A "pre-emption" of state and local payroll taxes eliminating those as
well on payrolls of less than $5 million would be nice, but I'm not
holding my breath for that.

For the ideas file on how to make things work better
--
https://sites.google.com/site/bpagsiegholle
http://www.siegholleward1.com/

Inspirational fact -what goes around comes around -pass it on

Go-Getters Who Give This Zig Ziglar column was originally published in 2000
Zig Ziglar
.
Many years ago, in the moors of Scotland, a farmer named Fleming was working hard to support his family. One day, while he was out in his fields working, he heard a distinct cry for help coming from a nearby bog. Mr. Fleming dropped his tools and ran to the bog, where he saw a young lad mired to his waist in black muck. The youngster was screaming and struggling to free himself. The farmer jumped into the bog, saving the young lad from a horrible death.
Thinking no more about it, Mr. Fleming went on about his work. The next day, a beautiful carriage pulled up to the front of their modest cottage. Out stepped an elegantly dressed nobleman, who introduced himself as the father of the boy Mr. Fleming had saved. The man said, "I want to repay you for saving my son's life."
However, the farmer said he couldn't accept payment for what he did, which he said was only the right thing to do. At that moment, the farmer's young son walked up, and the nobleman asked the farmer if that was his son. Mr. Fleming replied, "Yes." And the nobleman said, "I'll make you a deal. Let me take your son and give him a good education. If he's like his father, he will grow up to be a man you can be proud of." The farmer agreed, and the son left his home and went with the nobleman to receive an education.
Later, the son, whose name was Alexander, finished his education and graduated from St. Mary's Hospital School in London. He went on to become known throughout the world as the noted Sir Alexander Fleming, the man who discovered penicillin. Many years later, the son of the nobleman who put Alexander Fleming through school fell gravely ill with pneumonia. He was near death's door, but was saved by a new drug called "penicillin."
You probably have guessed that the nobleman was Lord Randolph Churchill. His son was Sir Winston Churchill. The old saying that "bread cast upon the waters often returns buttered" was certainly true in this case.
I'm not even mildly hinting that when you do something for someone else, the story will have an ending as dramatic as this one. However, what Mr. Fleming did was save a life, and any life has enormous value. He did it without thinking, without any motive other than to save the young boy's life. He graciously accepted the education for his son, because that was for his son's benefit.
The rest of the story is that Lord Randolph Churchill felt a lot better about the transaction because he had a chance to express his deep gratitude in a very real way. This is a classic example of my oft-quoted statement that you can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want. I'm certain Mr. Fleming did not have that in mind when he rushed to the aid of young Winston Churchill, but nevertheless, the application is perfect.
The same applies when you give a person in need a word of encouragement. An act of kindness, a helping hand to a youth in trouble, an encouraging word to someone who has lost his or her job can mean a world of difference to that person. There is nothing quite like encouraging people in their struggles through life.
Interestingly enough, research shows that those who get involved in local projects like cleaning up a neighborhood, serving in a soup kitchen, participating with Habitat for Humanity in building homes for the homeless, and so on, are so energized in the process that they end up being more successful in their chosen professions. Now, as newscaster Paul Harvey would say, that's "the rest of the story."

--
Brant Positve Action Group
If they can not do it –we can as citizens
– all ideas and community action plans welcome

A call to action for Brantford

Subject: A call to action for Brantford

BRANTFORD ECONOMIC INITIATIVE ;the-brantford-economic-initiative@googlegroups.com

A community call to action for Brantford, Brant and Six Nations
"We have to do more then water the flowers –we need to plant a vibrant
garden with the help of many good people"

As the many good people who did not win the race for official
government office take down their election signs, action plans and
better vision platforms, please remember that your community needs you
in many capacities. You have spent months getting real face to face
input and grassroots feedback from the people of your community. You
are now an real expert on what the people want, what the people do not
want and you have their pulse and the many ideas of what they think
should be done to better their community..

There are many issues that must be addressed to grow our community
successfully with your help. Individually or together we can make a
difference. I am sharing some current challenges gleaned from my
"boots walking" people survey . Here are some of the things that I
heard and learned from the people .

"Energy costs are rising to hurtful levels " … "Many costs of living
are rising here"

This is a issue that is going to get hot in the cold of winter -
particularly for those who use electrical heat and the costs escalate
to unaffordable "shut off "levels. What are we going to do to help
these people-that is the question? Some issues that are of interest
• An upload to the the provincial and federal govt- can the home
energy sector be made exempt from the HST ? What actions or
considerations will make this possible? There are citizen groups
starting to promote this " Influencing actions at the federal and
provincial level on utility bills like hydro, water and other
municipal intergovernmental issues"
• Predatory pricing practices of local utilities -such as connect and
disconnect charges - excessive interest and service charges hidden and
new profit centres to subsidize cost centres? - What to do to
remediate this or remedies on an exception basis?
• Consolidation of local utilities - there is one energy supplier -why
do we need multiple energy distributors - what happened to the
consolidation strategy - to reduce the number of overheads of the many
local energy distributors?

Why are the bad investment decisions of the past absorbed or
subsidized by the utility user? This is a monopoly pricing situation
over which they -the user have no control. Should these bad decisions
not come out of the general account?

A further sampling of my boots survey Voter comments

"Taxes and fees are out of control and we are not getting much for the
increased costs"." How are we going to pay for it?" "How are we going
to get high paying jobs here? "I just lost my job after many years and
now work for a temp agency-I have no choice and hate it." "There is a
drug house in the neighbourhood, I am afraid and the police can do
nothing about it. " " I moved from Toronto and commute every day –my
taxes are higher here-can you improve transportation to make it easier
to get to my work- a Go Station would be nice " " I live here, but the
large company that I run is in Cambridge –would have built it here –
but the City administration reneged on a major promise " "What do
those people who work for the city really do for the big money we pay
them –I work harder for less money ?" " This development plan for 80
heactres is owned by the city and could support 500 houses -we have
been working at it for 5 years – this part of the public consultation
has cost $200,000 , and it is going on for longer to make sure we
have proper input-what is your opinion?" "Why does everything take so
long to get approvals to do my projects- it is easier and faster in
other cities?" Why can we not get along with our neighbours and work
with them better –losing 350 jobs because of disputes is childish and
stupid " " Why is city garbage piled up next to my house –it stinks –
the city owns the rental complex –I have complained but nobody helps
me or cares" . "Why does it take a city truck , with a crew take two
days to paint a park bench" "Why do we have so many empty city owned
buildings seems like a waste to me – should we sell them to someone
who cares" 'Great plan but I have heard this before can you deliver
on the promise –action is really better then words –show me how I can
help get it done " "You are the first person who asked me –thank you
for asking "

The need for change

These questions and public comments from the people indicate that we
must change how we do things in this city and area- in the future
-.for the better . It is a call to action to do things that deliver
positive outcomes. It is a challenge to the new council to deliver
results , it is a challenge to business to grow jobs , it is a
challenge to all existing and new volunteer groups to add real value ,
it is a challenge to all individuals and groups to care how things are
done in this community . It is our city, our community and we get
what we put in.

I thank the people of Brantford for the opportunity to listen to your
very real concerns. It is a call to action that I accept as a
community volunteer and business person . I wish the new council every
success and sincerely hope all other candidates -not chosen for
council- will continue to support this community with their energy,
plans and ideas. Together we can make this an even better place to
live and prosper.

Thank you, people its been an exhilarating march and new self
motivating leadership ride

Sieg Holle BS MBA
http://www.siegholleward1.com/

Moving forward with new energy and ideas –
please join me
Brantford Economic Initiative BEi

In progress - Brant Positve Action Group If they can not do it –we can as citizens – all ideas and community action plans welcome

Join the Brant tea party -can we duplicate the success of the USA tea party group

Saturday, November 20, 2010

Energy trend

Study: Energy alternatives won't be ready
DAVIS, Calif. (UPI) -- Given the current pace of research and development, global oil supplies will run out 90 years before replacement technologies are ready, a U.S. study says.

Researchers at the University of California, Davis, based their conclusions on stock market expectations, on the theory that long-term investors are good predictors of whether and when new energy technologies will become commonplace, a university release said.

Two key elements of the new theory are market capitalizations, based on stock share prices, and dividends of publicly owned oil companies and alternative-energy companies.

Other analysts have used similar equations to predict events in finance, politics and even sports, the university said.

"Sophisticated investors tend to put considerable effort into collecting, processing and understanding information relevant to the future cash flows paid by securities," UC Davis post-doctoral researcher Nataliya Malyshkina said.

"As a result, market forecasts of future events, representing consensus predictions of a large number of investors, tend to be relatively accurate."

The forecast was published in the journal Environmental Science & Technology.

"Our results suggest it will take a long time before renewable replacement fuels can be self-sustaining, at least from a market perspective," said study author Debbie Niemeier, a UC-Davis professor of civil and environmental engineering.

--
Hollecrest & Associates Inc -"Turnaround Consultants" http://www.ic.gc.ca/ccc/search/cp?l=eng&e=123456239975 .

Back to Eden communities
Sunridge -261 Oakhill Drive, Brantford
backtoeden.ontario@gmail.com
www.backtoeden.bravehost.com
"Building elder peer communities that are cozy,caring and comfortable" -quality 24/7 care

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Smile -why we need to do service audits when we are having a bad day

Having a Bad Day? At work,at city hall in your organization -do an audit to find out why

Well, then, consider this..............

In a hospital's Intensive Care Unit, patients always died in the same bed, on Sunday morning, at about 11:00 a.m., regardless of their medical condition.

This puzzled the doctors and some even thought it had something to do with the supernatural. No one could solve the mystery as to why the deaths occurred around 11:00 a.m. on Sunday, so a worldwide team of experts was assembled to investigate the cause of the incidents.

The next Sunday morning, a few minutes before 11:00 a.m., all of the doctors and nurses nervously waited outside the ward to see for themselves what the terrible phenomenon was all about. Some were holding wooden crossses, prayer books, and other holy objects to ward off the evil spirits.

Just when the clock struck 11:00, Pookie Johnson, the part-time Sunday sweeper, entered the ward and unplugged the life support system so he could use the vacuum cleaner.

---------------------------------------------------------------

Small things can make bad thing happen in a big way - all parts of your organization -big and small must properly work together.

------------------------------------------------------------------

Still Having a Bad Day?
The average cost of rehabilitating a seal after the Exxon Valdez Oil spill in Alaska was $ 80,000.00. At a special ceremony, two of the most expensively saved animals were being released back into the wild amid cheers and applause from onlookers.

A minute later, in full view, a killer whale ate them both.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

Good intentions ,money do not necessarily make a difference

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

www.siegholleward1.com

Thursday, October 14, 2010

If Universities Were In Business, They’d Be Out Of Business: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy

If Universities Were In Business, They’d Be Out Of Business: FCPP - Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Monopolies don’t change until a competitive alternative comes along. Online learning offers a far superior formal teaching product. What it can’t deliver is teacher-student interaction. This is the competitive response that will make university life better for both faculty and students. Given that the education system is vital to Canada’s future, the payoff would be enormous.

This Globe and Mail report shows that all institutions have to re-invent themselves . Embrace the possibilities -do not place hurdles in front of constructive change and possibilities . PR

Monday, October 11, 2010

Fwd: Fw: BLACKLISTED Dalton McGinty

Subject: FW: *****BLACKLISTED***** Dalton McGinty

lets remember this for the next election. i will remind you for sure...............

Subject: Fwd: *****BLACKLISTED***** Dalton McGinty
Date: Fri, 1 Oct 2010 00:02:16 -0400

Subject: Fwd: *****BLACKLISTED***** Dalton McGinty

PLEASE READ, PASS ON (erase my e-mail before you 'forward' it please) AND REMEMBER NEXT ELECTION

Here is what our Premier has done for Ontario in the past seven years.
Remember...he promised no tax increase in his campaign election message.

He has increased all the licensing fees from your car to your boat including fishing and hunting.

He introduced the temporary health care premium (surcharge) in 2004 (not called a tax) and some couples pay as much as $1,500.00 a year. And you are still paying it.

He doubled the price of most lottery tickets. (Not called a tax).

He has put an ECO tax on many containers such as paint cans and window washer fluid most and people still don't realize it until they see the bill - he kept that one real quiet.

He put a disposal tax on all electronics.

He put the disposal tax back on tires.

And now he has passed the HST tax - the largest tax on the province ever and the only other tax in Ontario that ever came close to this in the past was the health care premium.  He passed this bill even though 76% of the people in Ontario were against it. The HST will provide the Province with an additional THREE BILLION dollars a year.

He awarded the Provincial PST Tax Collectors a staggering $9 million severance package when their jobs were transferred to the Federal Government as HST Tax Collectors and not a day's work was lost.

Soon we will all have our S.M.A.R.T.. meters that we will have to pay rent on and will end up doing our laundry in the middle of the night.  We are also going to pay big time for air conditioning from now on because when we need it the most it will be in the prime time of usage.

Let us not forget the E-health scandal with 1.2 billion dollars wasted and paid out to friends and relatives.

What was Mr. McGuinty's answer to this? "Well, if the people of Ontario don't like it, they can show it in the next election." Nice attitude. This after he fired the CEO of E-health and then gave her a severance package of $300,000 - not bad for only being on the job for seven months.
And what about the SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS windmill power plant contract that he awarded to KOREA? One would think there was some place in Canada or North America that could have built these.

He also closed the emergency rooms in Port Colborne and Fort Erie because there is not enough money. There have been two deaths since then because by the time they got to St. Catharine's it was too late.
But he then awards a hospital in Toronto three million dollars - of course, that was in the riding where there just happens to be a by-election to replace George Smitherman!

He has taken the richest most prosperous province in Canada down to one of the poorest and has created a deficit of TWENTY SEVEN BILLION DOLLARS and he still has a year and a half to go.

And don't forget his nice little salary increase of $40,000.00 a year - millions of people in the province don't earn even half of that.
Have we forgotten all the MPP'S who also got a 14% increase? And now that they've had their increases he comes out with a new budget to freeze all provincial employees wages for two years - a bit late don't you think.

He increased the hydro tax by 10% in April of 2010.

He has increased the tax on liquor and wine by 10% in May of 2010.

But, Mr. McGuinty will retire with his nice comfortable pension and all his benefits paid.

This needs to be passed around the province of Ontario and everybody needs to remember the way we got screwed by McGuinty and the Liberal party and not one Liberal MPP had enough guts to vote against any of the above.

--
Hollecrest & Associates Inc -"Turnaround Consultants" http://www.ic.gc.ca/ccc/search/cp?l=eng&e=123456239975 .

Back to Eden communities
Sunridge -261 Oakhill Drive, Brantford
backtoeden.ontario@gmail.com
www.backtoeden.bravehost.com
"Building elder peer communities that are cozy,caring and comfortable" -quality 24/7 care

Gmail - [FAIR Newsletter] Whistleblower watchdog strikes out for third time: FAIR calls for change - siegholle@gmail.com

http://mail.google.com/mail/#mbox/12b999d765ac1dc5

The Public Sector Integrity Commissioner, the agent of Parliament charged with protecting government whistleblowers, published her third annual report this week. For the third consecutive year the Commissioner’s office, with its annual budget of $6.5 million and staff of more than 20, has uncovered not a single case of wrongdoing and has protected not a single whistleblower.

Amazing is Canada really that good????

Tuesday, October 05, 2010

Education pricey, but worth it

Education pricey, but worth it

If a recent release from the Association of Universities and Colleges of Canada (AUCC) is to be believed, university graduates contribute more to Canada's economy and communities than do those without the benefit of higher education.

The new AUCC data on the value of a university degree highlight the benefits of investing in higher education against the backdrop of Canada's shifting demographics and the need for an increasingly flexible, adaptable and productive workforce.

"University graduates enter the workforce with the skills and knowledge necessary to adjust more easily to shifts in the employment market," says Paul Davidson, president, AUCC. "They find jobs quickly — and they find good jobs, that are interesting and pay well."
Never before did a university degree prove more useful than during the recent economic downturn, the worst in 70 years. University graduates enjoyed 150,000 net new jobs from September 2008 to March 2010, compared to 684,000 fewer jobs for those without a degree during that same period, according to AUCC data.

"This is a compelling arguement to increase and support higher education in Brantford to become a leading innovation and education hub and centre" says Sieg Holle who is running for Ward 1 in Brantford Oct 25 election.

"Knowledge is power -a power that we need to become a leading innovation and learning hub "

Accountability and leadership: Sieg Holle Councillor for Ward 1 Brantford

Of 11 candidates there is only 1 experienced business MBA in the race.
Sieg Holle BS MBA deserves one of your two votes to make a constructive community difference

Advisors News | Industry news | ADVISORS - Preston Manning to advisors: No substitute for integrity

Advisors News | Industry news | ADVISORS - Preston Manning to advisors: No substitute for integrity

" "If the aim is corruption-free government, business, or professional advice, there is still no substitute for character, personal integrity and adherence to strong ethics," Manning told the audience. " This is good advice

Friday, October 01, 2010

Plant closings mean loss of 150 jobs - Brantford Expositor - Ontario, CA

Thursday, September 23, 2010

-compliance with the law, but the prosecut

Ests that might be vitalized and exalted by that knowledge of the
life hereafter, which spirits alone can demonstrate. Instead of
confining
ourselves, therefore, to the relation of phenomenal facts and
speculative philosophy, we shall
endeavor
to show how beneficially the spiritualistic revelations of the
nineteenth
century might operate through such departments
of earth life as reform, science, theology, politics,
occultism and the only true and practical religion, viz.: goodness
and truth in the life here as
a preparation for heaven and happiness in the life hereafter." As to
Occultism and Theosophy, they say: "Every article that will appear in
these columns will be written by _one who knows_, and
who will deal with those subjects from the standpoint of practical
experience." The article on this subject in the first number
is extremely interesting and instructive, in fact, the first clear
and satisfactory statement that
has been published. Among other facts it mentions that "Lord
Lytton,
the Earl of Stanhope, and Lieut. Morrison (better known as Zadkiel),
and the author of Art Magic, belonged to this society,"--a secret
Occult society in England, successor to the ancient societies
of Egypt, Gree