New advertising bylaw will conceal the workings of city hall
By Letter to the Editor on April 6, 2021.
Editor:
Re:City Council Approves Bylaw 6251 Amendments for Less Transparency
On January 12, 2021, Lethbridge Council passed a motion to “save money” and to “bring the bylaw into the 21st Century” by reallocating print advertising to social media.
We believe this amendment will further conceal, rather than reveal, the workings of City Hall.
Lethbridge taxpayers look for local news in a variety of places. Some read the Lethbridge Herald, some listen to local radio, some watch televised news, and others rely on social media. Anyone concerned with City of Lethbridge issues would benefit from more information, distributed across all the various media.
Given how tightly information is held at City Hall, we would appreciate a greater effort and yes, even more spending to disseminate information! Not watering down the little that is now shared. We are looking at comparative pennies here, when at issue are hundreds of millions of dollars spent annually!
Ignoring advocacy by Councillors Parker, Hyygen and Mauro, and despite the recommendation of City Solicitor Loewen that more public input was required, a majority of Council nevertheless voted against further public engagement sessions.
Council then voted to reduce advertising in print media.
Transparency? Accountability? Citizen involvement?
Guess not.
Jeffrey DeJong
Lethbridge Transparency Council
-1
Agreed! Come the next election, I hope we get a new Mayor and Council who will take back control of the city from overpaid, self serving administrators.
yes, just like we get every election…a couple new faces maybe, but always the same old outcomes. some people do very well for themselves via the public purse, and have been doing as much here for a quite some time.
This City is same old same old some mayor prospects are committed to Large multi million projects to add to the over 300million debt load on the books but the new $75mPerforming Arts Center will be passed in this May along with a $ 25.2 million Residential Curbside Organic program payment loan process not stated add this to the $15m debt on curbside recycle debt paid by property tax. and first year MRF operating $935,000 loss paid by seized loan payment rebate on interest payment. The Industrial,Commercial, Institutional contribute over yearly 80,000 tonnes of garbage to landfill over 8 years 640,000- tonnes dumped no waste diversion targets ,no recycle projects no costs for over 25,000 tonnes of Organic a year. But the here we go again the Residentials are the culprits they recycle 4,200 tonnes cost to them$15million they produce 5,200 tonnes of organic will cost them $25 million $9.8m organic facility(building) $5.5millioncarts,4 new trucks, and equipment, $2.6Curbside organic collection cost(including tipping fees , Curbside organics processing cost $1.8m ,debenture payments$ 1.5m. Program revenue tipping fees $1.5m, collection User fees $3.6m. from a business sense pretty expensive waste diversion. What do you think will you support the Organic program No ICI Organic waste diversion program off the hook. Spearmen’s pet project.