taken toward understanding the longterm costs of running this municipality. We should back away from all of this? I could go on and I have several pages of notes on misleading and contradictory statements by the Ratepayers Association but that will be the topic of another post. I am concerned that there seems to be some confusion amongst this group, and the public, as to what is called for in this petition. I understand the original intent was to petition Municipal Affairs to remove council but now it is for an inquiry. Some of the petitioners still think, and are telling the public, that this is a petition to get rid of council. A few people have relayed to me that when they asked the petitioners, "who will be in charge if the council is removed?" the response was, "the Ratepayers Association". I find it hard to believe that anyone would be so naive as to think that Municipal Affairs would insert an unelected group as a new municipal council. If the government were to remove an elected council, they would put in a trustee to run the operation and make all decisions on behalf of the community until at least the next election. This would be a consultant from outside the community with complete control over all spending and practices without input from pretty much anyone. It's all done by the book at that point. My biggest concern is that the way this petition is being conducted is causing