HomeNewsDistrict’s past failure to communicate shocks family with this unexpected $2,000 memorial dedication bill Log in

Comments

District’s past failure to communicate shocks family with this unexpected $2,000 memorial dedication bill — 21 Comments

  1. I’m glad to see you’ve reposted Maja’s response to my post to her. I think she was genuinely surprised by this and the speed of her response leads me to believe she read my comment, got on the phone, and then replied to me.

  2. I am embarrassed for sooke talk about greed if any of those so called leaders are still on council give them the boot.no respect for the memory of others just cash grab .I would think a other closed meeting as they have had many of them.truly disgusting one bench one time .john mcneil

  3. Why can’t they just add more plaques to the benches? It’s not like we can put up enough benches for everyone that dies or there would be no where to walk the spit! So multiple plaques per bench gets everyone what they want

  4. Totaly Discusting. No respect for memories of the dead.closed meetings and cash grabs that is what this is.right before Christmas unbelievable. These leaders if any were involved in this shallow attempt at leadership are still in council they should be asked to leave.I am embarrassed for Sooke it is better than this.one bench one time .lets hope we get some people with morals and respect the next vote

  5. It seems, totally out of touch with the opened ended policy that may have been in place at the time the bench was installed in 2006.

    I like Lorraine Hill’s suggestion of adding more plaques.

    Keep the old plaques on there and add more through sponsorship.

  6. Kasper “can’t wait to get rid of this policy”. Seems kinda contradictory considering he was on council in 2014 and voted for it. Mind you, we are less than a year from the election, so kinda makes sense.

  7. It seems there should be a wall built to move plaques to, so that they are not lost from view. It also seems that the 10 year period has been in place since around 2001, so 2006 it was not an open ended contract as suggested earlier.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

WordPress Anti-Spam by WP-SpamShield