To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published November 4, 2011 as Letter of the Day
I am dismayed to see the expense run up in this ludicrous legal battle. The auditor general was hired and, after much wrangling, it was decided his department would report directly to council. As such, he is an agent of council and attempts by staff, including the inane arguments by the city solicitor, to shield city documents from the AG amount to shielding those documents from council.
The Mayor and council were elected by us, the citizens of Greater Sudbury, to oversee the operation of our city. The auditor general's role is to review those operations to ensure that staff is managing our tax dollars responsibly. What I expect from my elected representatives is that they issue a simple directive that staff provide the auditor general with anything he requests to further this objective on behalf of council. Or perhaps council has been managed by staff for so long that councillors are afraid to exercise the authority that they legally hold as our representatives.
If the transit fiasco is anything to go by, there is a need to shine a bright light in many dark corners of city management. Let's get on with it.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Re: Auditor general's transit report: Money missing for years - October 1, 2011
Read the article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published October 5, 2011 with minor editing
All I can say is thank you for the Auditor General. Without his investigation, there is no way we would have known that this situation has been building since 2004. I can see why Mr. Sauve has been doing his best to avoid responding to the audit report but it appears the collusion at Civic Square goes beyond Sudbury Transit. I would have liked to hear the management response to the findings but those have not been forthcoming, which has prompted special meetings of the audit committee.
What does it take for a member of the high paid City management team to be dismissed for not responsibly managing taxpayer dollars? As one of those taxpayers, this history is totally unacceptable and I will be watching to see how my Councillor and my Mayor deal with what can only be described as a scandal. Staff has been the tail wagging the dog for way too long.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Published October 5, 2011 with minor editing
All I can say is thank you for the Auditor General. Without his investigation, there is no way we would have known that this situation has been building since 2004. I can see why Mr. Sauve has been doing his best to avoid responding to the audit report but it appears the collusion at Civic Square goes beyond Sudbury Transit. I would have liked to hear the management response to the findings but those have not been forthcoming, which has prompted special meetings of the audit committee.
What does it take for a member of the high paid City management team to be dismissed for not responsibly managing taxpayer dollars? As one of those taxpayers, this history is totally unacceptable and I will be watching to see how my Councillor and my Mayor deal with what can only be described as a scandal. Staff has been the tail wagging the dog for way too long.
Monday, August 29, 2011
re: What's Good For The Goose - August 27, 2011
Read the article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published August 29, 2011 with minor editing)
Having been plagued by Canada geese on golf courses and at beaches for years, I read this article with great interest. But I note that, while scaring the geese off City property is beneficial for both the budget and the users, care is being taken not to harm them. Where are these geese going to go? I would be concerned if I were a private property owner with lake frontage not adjacent to a City park. The bottom line is that there are simply too many of these birds.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published August 29, 2011 with minor editing)
Having been plagued by Canada geese on golf courses and at beaches for years, I read this article with great interest. But I note that, while scaring the geese off City property is beneficial for both the budget and the users, care is being taken not to harm them. Where are these geese going to go? I would be concerned if I were a private property owner with lake frontage not adjacent to a City park. The bottom line is that there are simply too many of these birds.
It did bring to mind the sacred cows in India during periods of famine. I wonder how many poor and homeless people could be fed by a single Canada goose?
Thursday, June 2, 2011
re: Provincial Initiative Targets ER - June 1, 2011
Read the article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published June 9, 2011)
I was pleased to read of the provincial initiative to streamline the emergency room procedures across the province. The comment by Dr. Lepage that the lack of beds at the Sudbury Regional Hospital may reduce the benefit was telling, though. If I recall correctly, the original plan for the new hospital, back in the late 1990's, was to have a facility with 600 beds. However, after the building fiasco, this was reduced to 429. Why then would anyone be surprised that we have a current bed shortage? But then they didn't even provide enough parking spaces for the smaller hospital.
This reality, coupled with the shortage of Long Term Care facilities, tells me that those civil servants responsible for planning medical facilities in the north aren't very good at their job. In my opinion, the north in general and Sudbury in particular have been poorly served by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (who are in total control of all aspects of this service) over the last decade. I sincerely hope that this shortcoming will become an issue in the upcoming election.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published June 9, 2011)
I was pleased to read of the provincial initiative to streamline the emergency room procedures across the province. The comment by Dr. Lepage that the lack of beds at the Sudbury Regional Hospital may reduce the benefit was telling, though. If I recall correctly, the original plan for the new hospital, back in the late 1990's, was to have a facility with 600 beds. However, after the building fiasco, this was reduced to 429. Why then would anyone be surprised that we have a current bed shortage? But then they didn't even provide enough parking spaces for the smaller hospital.
This reality, coupled with the shortage of Long Term Care facilities, tells me that those civil servants responsible for planning medical facilities in the north aren't very good at their job. In my opinion, the north in general and Sudbury in particular have been poorly served by the Ministry of Health and Long Term Care (who are in total control of all aspects of this service) over the last decade. I sincerely hope that this shortcoming will become an issue in the upcoming election.
Friday, January 21, 2011
re: A rose by any other name - January 21, 2011
Read the article here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Minister Bartolucci is quoted in the article as saying "he has received praise from Sudbury doctors for the strides his government has made in addressing the bed crisis". I am not a doctor, merely a voter, but I am not rushing to offer praise.
The Minister's comment implies that he is satisfied with the efforts his government has made with respect to the crisis around long term care beds. I will only be satisfied when the Ministry publicly identifies the total number of long term care patients in the area including those in all the hospital sites, nursing homes and on waiting lists; projects the growth of this segment of our population; and presents a concrete strategy on how all these individuals are to be accommodated in a timely manner in facilities outside our primary care hospital.
The citizens in need of long term care who have contributed to the province's well-being for many years, as well as the users of local hospital services who are now suffering delays in timely treatment, deserve no less in our government operated health care system.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
Minister Bartolucci is quoted in the article as saying "he has received praise from Sudbury doctors for the strides his government has made in addressing the bed crisis". I am not a doctor, merely a voter, but I am not rushing to offer praise.
The Minister's comment implies that he is satisfied with the efforts his government has made with respect to the crisis around long term care beds. I will only be satisfied when the Ministry publicly identifies the total number of long term care patients in the area including those in all the hospital sites, nursing homes and on waiting lists; projects the growth of this segment of our population; and presents a concrete strategy on how all these individuals are to be accommodated in a timely manner in facilities outside our primary care hospital.
The citizens in need of long term care who have contributed to the province's well-being for many years, as well as the users of local hospital services who are now suffering delays in timely treatment, deserve no less in our government operated health care system.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
Re: Doctors Rail Against Memorial Closure - January 17, 2010
Read the articles here and here
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 20, 2011 as Letter of the Day)
For the second time in two days, you have run a story dealing with the impending closure of the SRH Memorial Site. Both articles highlight concerns from citizens and doctors about the negative ramifications of this move. I note that the new ALC beds available in the city can barely accommodate the Memorial residents, leaving a large number of individuals still in the main hospital and on waiting lists.
We have been classed as being in crisis with respect to ALC patients for many years. I would like to remind the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care that, by their very name, this ball is in their court. The government has assumed total responsibility for health care, going so far as to restrict doctors who work outside their system. Why then should they be able to pass the buck on long term care to their puppet LHIN's and the community?
Since we still don't have the capacity for all the ALC patients even with the new beds, the rational decision would be to keep the Memorial Site open until every person requiring long term care is accommodated outside the one-site hospital. While not perfect, opinions are that the Memorial Site it is substantially less costly and qualitatively preferable to the new hospital. In addition, it would be freed up to provide the services it was intended to with less waiting and crowding.
I hear optimistic words from government and hospital administrators. They have been saying the same thing for years. Will the situation actually improve by the time I cast my ballot in the fall provincial election? If the Memorial closes, I sincerely doubt it. I am as mad as hell now and will be doubly so by then. I ask the Ontario government to please stop nibbling at the problem and passing the buck. Step up and face it head on.
To the editor of the Sudbury Star,
(Published January 20, 2011 as Letter of the Day)
For the second time in two days, you have run a story dealing with the impending closure of the SRH Memorial Site. Both articles highlight concerns from citizens and doctors about the negative ramifications of this move. I note that the new ALC beds available in the city can barely accommodate the Memorial residents, leaving a large number of individuals still in the main hospital and on waiting lists.
We have been classed as being in crisis with respect to ALC patients for many years. I would like to remind the Ontario Ministry of Health and Long Term Care that, by their very name, this ball is in their court. The government has assumed total responsibility for health care, going so far as to restrict doctors who work outside their system. Why then should they be able to pass the buck on long term care to their puppet LHIN's and the community?
Since we still don't have the capacity for all the ALC patients even with the new beds, the rational decision would be to keep the Memorial Site open until every person requiring long term care is accommodated outside the one-site hospital. While not perfect, opinions are that the Memorial Site it is substantially less costly and qualitatively preferable to the new hospital. In addition, it would be freed up to provide the services it was intended to with less waiting and crowding.
I hear optimistic words from government and hospital administrators. They have been saying the same thing for years. Will the situation actually improve by the time I cast my ballot in the fall provincial election? If the Memorial closes, I sincerely doubt it. I am as mad as hell now and will be doubly so by then. I ask the Ontario government to please stop nibbling at the problem and passing the buck. Step up and face it head on.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
