Why is local , not better?

Posted by dpack on Mon. March 18, 2013 at 09:13  [ Report ]
[ Edit ]

Looks like you have company Ed. I can understand that in life you dont always win, I thins thats just fine but this one doesnt pass the test. Can you add to this without reprisal?

http://carletonplace.ca/photos/custom/CDC%20Action%20Report%20-%20March%202013.pdf

 

 
Display Replies: [ Recent first | Oldest first ]  
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 09:18  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

This might narrow it down!

 

123411 is the item number, It relates to awarding the website contract.

 

 
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 11:49  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Consistency is the hobgoblin of small minds. Good question, sure looks strange.

 
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 17:31  oneofseven replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

 

PERSONAL COMMENT

 

The presentation (staff recommendations) and report of action (vote) is as presented on the Town web site.

 

            However, I didn’t/don’t agree that there is enough benefit to make it worth paying a premium of $20,000 to go to Mc Sweeny.

 

            I can only speak for myself and not for any of the other members of the Community Development Committee.

 

Ed

 
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 17:54  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

PERSONAL QUESTION

The presentation (staff recommendations )... is as presented on the Town web site.

What's the url? Certainly not under WHAT'S NEW.

 
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 20:08  robin replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

recorded within the same document...

--
RECORDED VOTE

Councillor Antonakos   Nay
Councillor Black   Yea
Councillor Flynn   Nay
Jackie Kavanagh   Abstain
Mayor LeBlanc   Yea
Paul Muysson   Yea
Councillor Probert   Yea
Deputy-Mayor Sonnenburg   Nay
Councillor Strike   Yea
-- 

I hope that this time someone pays attention to what is delivered.

 
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 22:55  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

And who is Paul Muysson, Arent these things a committee of the whole decission?

Im completely lost for words on this, How did the other competing quotes score. It seems that this process includes a moving target that is inserted into the mix allowing just enough wiggle to pick the forgone! 

Imprssive that there are so many quotes for service, this must be a very competitive industry.

 
  On Mon. March 18, 2013 at 23:46  penguin replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Let's see what the people want:

I vote for Tomahawk Technologies

Next vote

~Pen v3.0

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 09:10  oneofseven replied with: [ Edit ]
New!
CDC_Action_Report_-_March_2013.pdf  [non-popup]

 

Community Development Committee Action Report copied and ATTACHED from web site;

 

http://carletonplace.ca/photos/custom/CDC%20Action%20Report%20-%20March%202013.pdf

 

See  Item 123411

 

Ed

 

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 09:13  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

The votes are in Dpack's posted pdf. The who, not the why. Supposedly there was a presentation that determined the votes.

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 12:27  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

To my question. If the town in its infinate wisdom chooses to Not award a contract to the lowest bidder, should they at least explain in detail why, but also disclose the scores of each contender, why show a rating system if you dont show me the score? I would think that the town would preferr to award locall0y. Do they? If not why not? The difference is to large to ignore, please no you get what you pay for...

 

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 12:40  shadowdog replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Is this site really needed could the info not be added to the existing site,? The one I use to see when garbage collection is during holidays, It seems strange that McSweeny always wins these tenders and more, and will they sub it out to eSolutionsGroup a global company?. My votes will only go to the nays come election time. Another sad choice for a small town that should use the local businesses that are just as qualified if not more.

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 12:40  observist7 replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

ED maybe you could enlighten us on some of the discussion, to bring about a vote …

The inclusion of the Optional Services would increase the McSweeny proposal to: $21,540 ($24,340 with HST) and an annual cost of $5,600.  Was this debated?

Didn’t see mention of ties to Town Web Site and cost involved.  What is maintance cost  today  yearly  for  it  .With town  site to be  redone or  updated this year what will  cost be when done to be compatible  with  Economic one  ,why  were  both  not  done in conjunction , so  if McSweeny   doesn’t  get that one  , will  there be issues  with another provide  .

Tomahawk Technologies $6,175.45 $1,385.45 Proprietary Price includes three support incidents per month

McSweeny and Associates $18,295 $4,805 Proprietary Includes unlimited support, data mining, hosting and other lichens

Seeing  great difference  in bids  above ,,,,,,what rationale  was given to  exclude  one  of the lower  bidders and was this not  questioned by  council .

Last when  this comes to council  for  final  approval an we agree with your  decision but do   you see  reversal of  decision with  other members or is this another  staff  recommendation an passed  ….

ITS amazing all complained of  last Mayor  doing  economic development  job  for  $20k  yet look at present  department budget  staff  around  $130k  budget $250k +web site  $23k an yr/cost$5600. .let’s hope  companies  pounding at door  to move  here ,  haven’t  seen  any yet  ………only  3  local developers  fed-up  …….hmmmmmmmmmm.

Oh  my anther election  issue  how many have we now  ..19months an counting .Least your open in your decisions  ED .thanks

 

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 14:34  oneofseven replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Personal Comment

 

Burl and Obser

 

            There is not much to add as staff pretty much stayed with the text (provided under 123411) as their presentation (which is why I re-copied it)

 

And, although there seemed to be considerable discussion my memory is that most of it revolved around extolling the virtues of the Mc Sweeny proposal/capability and what he could bring to the table.

 

Ed

 
  On Tue. March 19, 2013 at 14:44  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Message editted: Mar 19, 2013 at 14:45
By: burled

Thanks Ed.

I'm reminded of the IBM ad. Could it be that simple?

"No one ever got fired for buying IBM"

 
  On Wed. March 20, 2013 at 17:38  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Isnt it ironic that the lowest bid, (local) was rejeected and the entire website is devoted to.... Economic Development. I cant stop laughing at this. The irony!

 
  On Wed. March 20, 2013 at 18:26  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

If we encourage local just because of a proven track record and lowest bid, we will discourage others. They'll leave before they even get here. It's a loss we can't afford!

 
  On Wed. March 20, 2013 at 18:57  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

If we discourage local just because of a proven track record amd lowest bid we will encourage others to bid high and put local out of business. Why is this being done?

I'll repeat, the  raison d'etre for this is to develop a web site to promote economic developement. This company has developed a made in C.P product. why would we take this opportunity away from Tomahawk.

Can someone please attempt to convince me that this decission is a good one.

 
  On Sat. March 23, 2013 at 08:37  Thorbjornsson replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

This is typical of them, overspend on a tool to look for economical development when they just turned down the biggest economical development opportunity that this town has ever seen. I've heard from town staff that next year we will see even greater tax increase than we did this year and they just keep on spending.

 
  On Sat. March 23, 2013 at 20:01  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Sure Thorb:

I dont disagree. but from my perspective I dont mind spending the "big bucks" as long as Im satisfied that I getting value for the dollar. There are time that we all must spend a little extra.

With this proposal or contract I dont know how you can get three or four times the product that Tomahawk was quoting for.

If the winning bid has a product or service thats 3 or 4 times better,  then spend our tax dollars.

My question stands.

I'll repeat, the raison d'etre for this is to develop a web site to promote economic developement. This company has developed a made in C.P product. why would we take this opportunity away from Tomahawk.

Surley some anonamous forum member, staff person, elected officia,l can shed some light on this. The clear majority voted in favour to award to another bidder. They must have been convinced overwhelmingly based on the difference in price. Hell at this point Id accept an explanation from the winning bidder! lol

 
  On Sat. March 23, 2013 at 22:36  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

I'll bet the ones who voted against it have some suggestions.

 
  On Sat. March 23, 2013 at 22:56  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Nothing in the news paper! Perhaps there muzzled!

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 08:40  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Re:'ll repeat, the raison d'etre for this is to develop a web site to promote economic developement. This company has developed a made in C.P product. why would we take this opportunity away from Tomahawk.

Ive thought about my question a bit more. maybe it should read.

"why would we take this opportunity away from the town?" Surely haveing a thriving prosperous high teck company within our town limits is benificial not only to those that work there but to all other businesses within the area and behond!

The convieience alone, to me would be a huge factor in the decisson making process, (yes I know tecknology doesnt require personal contact) there are time howevers when nothing can replace the face to face. In this case it a hop and a skip!

Anyhow: I believe that the opportunity was a loss for the town more than Tomahawk! Perhaps that is a (it depends) kinda situation but ya get my point?

 

 

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 10:09  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Ooops! Guess I should create a new thread. My last post is more like "why local is better"! lol

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 10:11  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Come on Burled! Though you would have caught that!

cheers ;)

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 13:58  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

I was at a loss for words dpack. It happens.

For what it's worth, this is an issue councilors should be weighing in on. But they probably wouldn't at that second string forum site either. Their email addresses were posted there last time I looked(some time ago).

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 14:34  bughunter replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

My question is, what differentiates the elements to develop this new site from the last one that McSweeney did?  Remember how blown away we all were once we realized that the McSweeney CMS was actually a third party product from a company in, what, Kingston was it?  Their role, then, was better described as project management and training rather than website developer.  At the time, the town was knee deep with them for the strategic planning process or some such and council thought that there was continuity there.  That only makes sense if they were also writing the site content, which is nonsense to me.

 

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 14:40  observist7 replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

This  item will  come to  council Tues an  rubber stamp without discussion  less  a  member of council  has second thoughts  which I  don’t see ,showing how  out of touch with  public , an  doing their  own  thing .As expressed  before when does one question  maintance cost alone  for   both, and we all  know  current web site is limited .

On wonders if  local  web site provider that  sent in  bid asked  for open  public  explanation  what answer would be .Nice to  see their point rating  , hope they ask  for  so  in future so can compete oh  maybe not in  CP .

http://carletonplace.ca/photos/custom/6th%2520Meeting%2520March%252026,%25202013.pdf

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 19:51  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Wholly crap your right Bughunter: If memory serves me it was between Tomahawk and McSweeny. Second rate site is being generous Burled.

I suppose all sites go stale with time but if the current Town website is any indication of what we can expect from an artistic and functional viewpoint for the Economic Development Site thats currewntly being built then shame on you Council! Is there some connection between the Town and McSweeney that transends rational thinking.

Robin: Your thread topics should read  "Ilogiclal Politics" rather than Local Politics.

As observist points out perhaps there may be a change of heart on this issue. What are the chances that four will get it right?

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 20:10  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Does anyone care that this community is loosing 25,000.00 to a competitor that may not even be located in our county! Certainly not in our town.

Is complaining just like the wall street movement that started out slow and then grew ammasingly but soon fizzled! Surley elections are not the only way to effect change! Maybe that is the only way but look at the result. Same decission twice in  a row!

The three that voted against McSweeny should tow the line, Knuckles are going to be sore for some on Wed morning.. lol Ed call in sick!

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 20:23  bughunter replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Nope.  It won't be up for discussion.  If memory serves me right, how things work, with this item included in the Council agenda with the notation "receive and file" it is included for information purposes only.  "FYI this is what we did" sort of thing.  If there was to be further review it would have been included in the Policy Review Agenda.  And it isn't. 

Not to mention, this was dealt with in committee that is comprised of all council members, plus a couple folks.

That's it, that's all.  I'd be extremely surprised if during the council of the whole that this would be highlighted and sent back to committee for further review.  That's the only way you can get any further consideration.

 
  On Sun. March 24, 2013 at 20:32  bughunter replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

....and I double dog dare yall to do it

 
  On Mon. March 25, 2013 at 12:27  shadowdog replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

I find it strange that McSweeny takes credit for the City of Pickering website yet it was designed by eSolutions group .

http://www.pickering.ca/en/sustainablepickering.asp see bottom

Are all Mcsweeny websites done by them and it almost seems like a conflict of interest that they both bid on it.  Is council aware of this, it seems like unfair bidding, kinda like owning several companies and bidding against yourself to look like the lower price. After all was added up McSweeny's price is very close to eSolutions. I was once burned by a tender made in Almonte so I am wary when it comes to bidding.

 
  On Wed. March 27, 2013 at 17:56  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

ed; has the decission changed  with the choice of web site contract?

 
  On Wed. March 27, 2013 at 19:02  outsider replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

I suspect that McSweeny has a sales staff that is adept at selling ice to the Inuit.

 
  On Thu. March 28, 2013 at 15:29  oneofseven replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Hi dpack,

 

            I tried, but no change.

 

            Sorry

 

Ed

 
  On Fri. March 29, 2013 at 08:57  shadowdog replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Maybe McSweeny will sub out the work to Tomahawk/lol. It will look really funny if they hand it over to the competiting bidder eSolutions Group.

 
  On Fri. March 29, 2013 at 10:34  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Ok! Thanks Ed. I thought that there would be an opportunity to reverse the decission as it was made at a larger committee!!! ie some not politicians>>>> Community Developement Corporation Committe. If your other "two partners in crime" joined you, all ya needed was one more. Ill assume one of your colleauges declared a conflict as he works in the building. That left you with just one of three to convince! No lobbying in the lobby? lol

Nice try, nice work! Next time!

On a more thread related question... Does nobody even want to take a stab at the thread question\topic. Promise no attacks just fair exploring the issue.

Burled I'll start: Here goes. Hiring a large firm gives an advantage to the town as they Mc S have quite a bit of experience dealing with a multitude of design, implimentation, and sucess stories? It sounds good.

Ok Burled, Bug, Let me have your counter or opposite! It'll be fun.

 
  On Fri. March 29, 2013 at 18:57  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

All things being equal, the lowest price should win an RFP. So, what did McSweeney offer this time that Tomahawk couldn't? What wasn't 'equal?' And why don't we know? What motivated the votes that decided it?

The advantage the town has with McSweeney is the track record. Does the town site www.carletonplace.ca  impress us that much? If not, was the failure McSweeney; or didn't the town exploit its possibilities with their solution?

There should have been an analysis to report what we got from McSweeney. Did they deliver as promised? Timelines, functionality, etc. Did they meet all their requirements? Or did we just pay and forget? Where's the report?

The fact is, we never understood why McSweeney beat Tomahawk to get installed on the first contract. This one appears to be deja vu all over again. 

 
  On Fri. March 29, 2013 at 21:09  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

All very well articulated. Continuity is a reason to stay with McS. They already provide service to the town and I assume the town IT staff have some sort of working relation ship.

Damn it. Must go, more later!

 
  On Sat. March 30, 2013 at 12:34  shadowdog replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Continuity is very expensive, My son was visiting yesterday and he is in hi-tech and cannot believe Tomahawk didn't get it . The site they have now for CP can be written by him or many of his friends ,as he stated it is just a simple web page nothing fancy and definately not worth the price they paid.

 
  On Sat. March 30, 2013 at 16:45  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

There's another angle to this as well. Why would anyone quote on the next contract if continuity was a factor in deciding. OOOpps that supposed to be you guys. Thanks Dog!

So busy I have this whole argument for hiring McS but have not trime to lay it out.

 

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 07:51  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

A little morei nformation that gives us some insight as to how decissions are made! Maybe the right decission was made but how do you not award to a competing bidder that is in the top five and is 300% less.

The emc link

http://www.emcalmontecarletonplace.ca/20130404/news/Awarding+of+economic+development+website+raises+questions

P.S How do I make it easier so that the link is live and not a copy paste excersice for those that want to view the above? My action is highlighting the web addreess in the address bar and copy paste. What do you techies do that make the link open a new web page. So convienient!

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 09:59  burled replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

The proposals were scored on a matrix: understanding requirements (10), qualifications and past experience (35), understanding and approach (35), cost (20).

Clear as slush, eh?

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 11:44  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

The article implies the McSweeney scored considerably higher than the other four. I find this hard to believe. Especially when one estimate,  Tomahawks:, must have scored highly on the pricing componant. Surley all of the top five must have been fairly close in points. Why include them in a top five if there is a huge gap between points as implied. Spin I say! Shame on you!

No mention of who scored the bids, was it even discussed, a mention of in camera but no reason why, If they picked the winning bid why not release all of the information. Lets see the difference between 1st 2nd 3rd 4th 5th. To suggest details and limitations and then sighting in Camera meeting is a throw back into the dark ages!

 All of these one sentence lines supporting a decission but never details on how who, why, where, Why is this Council hell bent on keeping information from the public. Whats the big deal if the run away winner is McS. I'd support them if they won! Did they?

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 11:48  Ladybird replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Message editted: Apr 4, 2013 at 12:32
By: Ladybird

The ratings system seems very subjective. Do council members understand what they need or is it based on how well the applicants explain to them what they need? Do council members have a list of points that they tick off when the proposal hits the mark to arrive at the score? Does anyone have advanced knowledge of the points? Of course the current vendor may have better understanding and knowledge since they already have a relationship with the town already. Understanding and knowledge of what though? Does a web designer need to know about economic development or web design and support? >

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 18:03  shadowdog replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Right on LadyBird, Now we can dump any EDO we are paying because McSweeny already knows what we need they have the experience and knowledge. Cracks me up. It would be nice if the town council would just quit making anymore decisions on spending our money and work at getting our taxes down. I do not pretend to understand how it all works but with so many new homes and businesses in CP I would have thought taxes would  go down or stay the same with all the additional taxes they are collecting. Maybe we should stop anymore growth it just costs us more in the end. I miss the old town feel we used to have.

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 19:25  bughunter replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Hi Dpack

setting up your link takes just a few more steps once you have copied and pasted your link into your message. Once you have pasted the link, then highlight it.  With it highlighted, you will notice an icon above that looks like a chain link will be enabled. 

Click on the icon and a dialogue box opens.  Note that your highlighted link is already in the link/url field.  Directly below is a picklist named 'target'.  Pull down and you can select 'open link in new window'.  Select that, click the 'insert link' button and you're done.

Your link will then open in a new window.  Try that out, then I can show you some fancy schmancy stuff for it as well.

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 19:39  bughunter replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

From my experience with RFP's, the tender must answer the RFP in its entirety.  If there are extra bells and whistles, these should not be considered when rating.

If the committee deems the extra bells and whistles are desirable, then they should re-issue the RFP to include them.  This gives everyone the same opportunity to win the RFP.

This is yet another snafu. The awarding of the contract to McSweeney is unfair. 

Kudos to the EMC reporter for her story, it's the only way the public gets to know the entire story.

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 21:50  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!
 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 21:55  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

You got it Bug! It must be all of those books that you read. Where do you find the time.

Thank you!

shmanzy eh!!

 

 
  On Thu. April 4, 2013 at 22:03  dpack replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Kudos indeed, I wonder though surley this is not the only news worthy story, The paper has strugled to find there way since being bought out.

As of late there has been what appears to be some real reporting going on, Im sick and tired of seeing our elected officials pics with no story other than a bloody photo op. Well except for one hehe. Ok you to Ed!

Its starting to look like the paper of old. A new thread

 
  On Wed. April 10, 2013 at 15:24  haymaker replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

@shadowdog, we don't have an EDO. We have a junior level economic development coordinator.

 
  On Wed. April 17, 2013 at 10:07  passenger1147 replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

Here's a somewhat related question.

 

How often do Leblanc, Strike, Probert and Black vote one way and Antonakos, Flynn and Sonnenburg vote the other way?

 
  On Wed. April 17, 2013 at 15:14  bughunter replied with: [ Edit ]
New!

I did a search "Carleton Place" and "recorded vote" out of curiosity, but I'd need more time than I have at the moment to really consider the results.  It was enough to make me go hmmmm, however. 

.....but the sun is out!!!

 

 

PostHeaderIcon Local Politics

Opinions and what-not about local politics.
   

      Threads (sorted by activity) Author Posted Last Reply     
1. disrespectful conduct from a mem  realitycheque  Apr 19 [0 replies]   12   
2. does this town really need a tow  cookie  Apr 18 [4 replies]   Apr 19 119   
3. letter-gate  drgelwag  Apr 8 [65 replies]   Apr 19 1315   
4. lack of media coverage  bughunter  Apr 17 [0 replies]   87   
5. we need a better mayor.  thorbjornsson  Feb 17 [109 replies]   Apr 16 2639   
6. who monitors the garbage contrac  shakemyheadandwonder  Apr 16 [1 replies]   Apr 16 106   
7. dog pound  pcbear  Jan 15 [29 replies]   Apr 15 683   
8. randy hillier  burled  Sep 5 [28 replies]   Apr 15 901   
9. political landscape  new2cp  Feb 2 [55 replies]   Apr 14 1368   
10. morality and compassion  new2cp  Apr 2 [33 replies]   Apr 13 1158   
11. mesleading statements from town  informed  Apr 12 [0 replies]   66   
12. costs of perc going to be budget  cookie  Apr 5 [5 replies]   Apr 11 241   
13. carleton place hospital fundrais  cookie  Apr 5 [13 replies]   Apr 11 305   
14. transparency  burled  Mar 19 [15 replies]   Apr 9 544   
15. e-radio  burled  Apr 9 [0 replies]   81   
16. hospital redevelopment dead  drgelwag  Jan 28 [79 replies]   Apr 7 1948   
17. why is there not a wendys in car  paulitical  Apr 5 [3 replies]   Apr 6 141   
18. does the town have a surplus of  shakemyheadandwonder  Mar 30 [2 replies]   Apr 5 200   
19. there otta be signs posted on hi  cookie  Apr 3 [4 replies]   Apr 5 166   
20. safety of children compromised b  cookie  Apr 5 [0 replies]   55   
21. imagine - a couple together for  cookie  Apr 3 [0 replies]   85   
22. local sunshine list  jeem  Mar 29 [15 replies]   Apr 1 380   
23. how many glasses of wine does it  cookie  Mar 27 [4 replies]   Mar 29 216   
24. whose the internet service provi  cookie  Mar 29 [0 replies]   91   
25. where on town's website is the a  cookie  Mar 23 [4 replies]   Mar 27 226   
26. councillor in the news  valleyboy  Mar 27 [0 replies]   118   
27. protest march 25/2014 - at lunch  cookie  Mar 25 [0 replies]   95   
28. what qualities would you like to  cookie  Mar 24 [1 replies]   Mar 25 111   
29. radio station  informed  Mar 14 [27 replies]   Mar 24 741   
30. where's friday  cookie  Feb 9 [6 replies]   Mar 24 224   
31. management statements prepared b  cookie  Mar 23 [0 replies]   79   
32. enough of the wendy photo ops  wheresthehospital?  Mar 21 [2 replies]   Mar 22 128   
33. new hospital or redevelopment  dave  Sep 21 [220 replies]   Mar 7 6578   
34. why all the hospital secrecey?  bughunter  Nov 22 [86 replies]   Mar 7 2679   
35. is this stupid or what ... a ven  cookie  Mar 2 [15 replies]   Mar 7 459   
36. ontario energy group scam  wheresthehospital?  Feb 18 [0 replies]   119   
37. please send letters to the edito  wheresthehospital?  Feb 5 [15 replies]   Feb 18 490   
38. scott reid  burled  Nov 27 [52 replies]   Feb 12 1594   
39. rumor and inuedo  dpack  Feb 8 [6 replies]   Feb 10 265   
40. hydro one petition  paulitical  Feb 5 [5 replies]   Feb 6 187   
 
  Thread contains questionable/restricted content
  [ Jump to Top of Page ]  
Who's On (last 15 mins)... (7 users: 7 lurking + 0 active users )
  
Share