Question Period needs to be renamed

The Council Question Period has to be renamed and explained better in the Council Rules. Council regulars are getting the wrong idea of what it is.  It is not about the issue.  I've spent years in this Chamber wanting to toss my two cents in during debates on the issues of motions, I've sat there while Councillors have missed an important point, IMHO.  But a Council QP is not the place to ask rhetorical points or discuss issues even if phrased in form of a question.  If you want to discuss policy, get elected, which of course is usually the intent of asking the question in the first place in most cases.

A legitimate question  is a simple how or when not a why.  If the Mayor used the phase attributed to him by Voices that questions were not to be asked on any motion that passed, it was incorrect.  I've asked and had questions accepted when they were not on motions that had passed.

I have not been able to watch the video of last week yet but as an example you can't ask "how can Council spit on our Maritime heritage by destroying .." but could ask "when is the stern to be destroyed? as that question is based on the implementation of the motion.  It is a when? not a why? Or just a point which opposes the decision made by Council.

The Mayor, as Chair, ruled Kerry Morris' question out of order tonight.  Not because the motion had passed but because Kerry started off  inputing his opinion as "background".  It doesn't matter if you've phrased your point in the form of a question, it is the Mayor, not Alex Trebek. 

The actual motion, Item 15 read
"PURSUANT to the report of the Manager, Community and Long-Range Planning, Community Development, dated December 4, 2013, entitled “Draft Official Community Plan”: 

THAT the draft Official Community Plan be released for discussion and input including referral to City Advisory Bodies; 

AND THAT staff be directed to proceed with the final community engagement 
phase of the CityShaping program and work towards a final version of a 
revised Official Community Plan and Regional Context Statement in 2014."

A proper question would be "Would this be brought back in time for Council to finally pass before August 2014"  You might get away with a quick "Considering that Metro Vancouver had a deadline of last July for the submission of the Regional Context Statement, due last July, would submitting it "in 2014" as the motion states cause us problems?"  Even if the Mayor rules the question out of order, you've already asked the question and likely the Mayor would just say "No, I've made Metro aware of our timeline" or something like that.  It is not an opportunity for a speech.  If you start off saying "According to the Magna Carta, the citizens have a right .. blah blah, you are making a speech and should be cut off.  If you think you're clever and ask "Do you consider that passing Motion #15 is a affront to those who believe in the rights of the citizens as established in the Magna Carta, blah, blah ...." you will get cut off legitimately although you asked in the form of a question.

As we get closer to the election, people will try to take advantage of the rules.  Until I see the actual video I can't say whether the questions asked by Gary and Tony were legitimate or the Mayor after a long meeting, making a judgement call on a question ruled too harshly but one thing stands as I deleted this morning's article and my accusations in my article based on the Voices blog, as a former Roberts Rules geek I consider that if a question is ruled out of order, that action of the Chair should be reflected in the minutes.

I would hate to see the opportunity to ask legitimate questions lost as regular Council attendees abuse that function even if caused by a lack of clarity in the wording of the Council procedure that is printed in the agenda every week.

There is definitely a problem in the length of the Council meeting that had contributed to the problem since it has to be at the end of the meeting.  Taxpayers are paying for every moment that Council sits.  The Mayor commented that former Mayor Loucks only allowed three question per Councillor in their allocated 5 minutes since this stops their time clock and rapidly extends the time each motion takes.  Surely a little more prep time by members of Council and am occasional phone call to answer questions would help keep meetings shorter and our tax bills lighter.

The end of question period

UPDATE: I've had a tweet that gave a recollection  from someone who was actually there that the Mayor just told all 3 speakers to just ask a question and not use the question period that as a method of making debate points on an issue that was already over.  If so, the Mayor acted appropriately and Voices reps need to learn and the Council procedures before complaining about them.

I've taken this article down as my source was highly inaccurate.  

-----------

The 2014 Election as it starts forming up (Part one)

Nominations don't close until about late September of next year but it looks like we in the City of North Van will be presented with the opportunity to change the status quo or continue with politics here being stuck in a time lock.

This article builds on material in Parties-slates and independents? and  in A recap and analysis of the council election of 2011.  One of the fundamental aspects I've focused on is really there are two NDP dominated groups that dominate CNV politics

The Mayoral race

Let's start off with the obvious, Mayor Mussatto will run again and likely win. VOICES candidate Rod Clark will run for Councillor after an inappropriate outburst during Council. Two years ago he had said he was running for Mayor.  VOICES will (wants to)  run someone, possibility Ron Polly again although I think that a Council run where he has a chance of winning is more likely. I think they will be desperate to find candidates. Unite North Van will do its nominations in May but is not actively seeking a Mayoral candidate but if someone applies who has the credentials and experience to run for Mayor, one may be approved.

It is likely that Mussatto will be acclaimed once again. In 2008, when he was acclaimed, Mayor elect Mussatto ran a full campaign with tens of thousands in donations and spending. Donations started the day after he had been acclaimed.  Why the pretense?  Is it even legal to have a person who is not a candidate portrayed as a candidate running in the election to be voted on?  In the past elections have been with the no outside independent supervision.  The province is now putting in laws to put Elections BC in charge of elections so challenges to our City Clerk who wears the Chief Electoral Officer hat for elections can now be made. I will challenge anyone who is acclaimed being treated as candidate running in the election.

Retirements?

I tend not to believe when told by a third party that a Councillor is not running and nothing is ever firm until the close of nominations.  But it is safe to state that Pam Bookham is retiring, I know she almost didn't run last time and was talked into another term by the VOICES people who didn't want to lose one of their Councillors.

Another probable resignation is Guy Heywood who is likely running for the Federal Liberal nomination to run against Andrew Saxton. The nomination should be just after the municipal election and perhaps he feels it would be  unseemly to commit for another 3 year municipal term and then immediately run federally with aim of resigning and causing an expensive byelection. But on the other side of the coin, Don Bell did it in 2004 and Craig Keating tried to do last May.   But I've also heard that Heywood may run in the District as well so there are competing rumours. Ten months prior to the close of nominations gives a lot of time to change one's mind, or to focus it.

The NDP slate

So lets look at the two political parties that dominate the CNV Council, first the Mayor's slate and other strongly left wing candidates.  They will run five candidates as usual in their seemingly endless quest to gain a majority on Council so they can completely implement their socialist NDP agenda since the brass ring of Provincial Government is likely forever out of their reach.  It is not too much of a stretch to say that Councillors Keating and Buchanan will run and only 150 votes back from a Council seat will motivate Cheryl Leia to make third try.  It looks like they will be joined by Franci Stratton a District School Board trustee, Scott McMyn and Evonne Strohwald. Perhaps Mary Trentadue will re-enter

Other NDPers and other assorted left wingers that may step up but not likely on the Mayor's slate, is Pam Bookham which I think will retire instead, Ivan Leonard, Tyler Russell of the Urban Forum and Michael Charrois - even with the failure of the pot decriminalization referendum that won't even go to a vote.  Ron Sostad may advance his C.O.P.E. cause by running in a legally registered Party along with some fellow hard core socialists and even communists.

The Green Party may run led by Ryan Conway, the Green candidate for the last provincial election and should register as well, putting the Green Party name on the actual ballot. There should be at least one other candidate with the Greens.  Why should Adrienne Carr have all the fun?

So even if the Mayor does not register as Vision North Van or some other name like Victoria's NDP Victoria Civic Electors, there should be at least 3 elector organizations with a name on the ballot.  There is more chance that Mussatto and Keating will see the opportunity and register than the Voices people would want to come out of the shadows.

It's under a year to the next election

The title says it all but will the voters vote for a change?

Parties, Slates, "Independants"

Let's start off with the top organized political slate, well they're nameless so I use the term "Vision North Van" he and Gregor Robertson are old buddies from Carson Graham when Gregor lived in North Vancouver.  They could be called "Mussatto's team" or "Racing with the Mayor" or "The NDP's muncipal team" or something like that.   Perhaps they can't think of a good name that can fit on the ballot if they were legally registered as an Electoral Organization.

Before we hear the usual cries of "we are just a group of like minded candidates", this is a municipal NDP political party.  See bit.ly/svfAg4  for a North Shore News article.  Now it is easy to see the NDP orientation when you read of most Council decisions and Councillor Keating is obviously a card carrying NDPer but Mayor Mussatto?  It's not that he hides it but just doesn't portray himself that way except for his votes on Council.  Most know but I still run into people who think he is fully independent and not an arm of the NDP like former NDP MLA Gregor.  Here's the Mayor's Vision in a leaflet from the 2008 election.  Thousands of union dollars were spent on like ads in both North Shore newspapers.

Former Councillor Schechter moved to Burnaby to run for the NDP nomination after leaving Council. 2011 candidate Juliana Buitenhuis ran for the NDP in West Van prior to her Council run here.  It is clear that the "Mussatto slate" is a formal group of NDPers.  A former candidate naively asked me how do you get on the Mayor's slate?  I told him to join the NDP and work on Craig Keating's provincial NDP campaign.  As a member of the team that helped reelect Naomi, of course that was not an option for him.

Why the facade?  Well, the political class in North Vancouver believe that the voters will electorally punish those who ran in an electoral organization. Not even when the parties or slates are not arms of a federal or provincial party. Bill Bell, a former Councillor and NDPer wrote on my Facebook wall that the voters won't vote for a party or formal slate but never in the history of North Van has there been a legally registered party like Richmond First or Surrey First or the NPA or COPE or even Vision Vancouver. I think the voters want a honest straightforward, name on the ballot, type party rather than the smoke and mirrors tactics the other use to mask their intent from the voters.

In the Opposition role to Mussatto's minority government is Voices. There is a group of candidates (some Councillors) that Voices runs as their core slate who organize prior to the election and those they endorse out their list.  Voices claims to have formed in March of 2012 when some appeared in a delegation to Council by this name. Of course, mostly the same people registered as "third party advertising group" published an ad on November 2011, the day prior to the elections. http://bit.ly/IfFaHS  Does anyone think that Voices is not Independent Voices with a word dropped from the name? Of course, this disclosure was made more than two months after voting.

Here is the illegal ad they published in the North Shore News on 14 Nov 2008.

And here is the Voices AD from published in the North Shore News on 18 Nov 2011. This is the one they filed the spending declaration that the Election Law requires.

Does anyone believe Voices representatives who say they never existed before the spring of 2012?  Or that this group an organized group of people who try to secretly influence the elections?

In 2012, they got in a public tussle with supporters of the Onni 1308 Lonsdale project.  https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=565851072 and some "foodies" in Surrey,  http://wflbc.com/2012/12/11/north-vancouver-nimbys-playing-politics-and-taking-control/. Their "modus operandi" was the same in 2008. They deny that Voices didn't exist before March 2012 but it is clear the same group of people, taking the same actions.

For the election of 2008, Voices did an ad, the day before the 2008 election with mostly the same names of endorsers/donors as 3 years later. It is quite clear that this ad originated from the same group of people of the "Independant Voices" ad of 2011. The ad was mostly the same but in 2008 they never filed a legal required declaration as the one above and they should have been charged for violating the election law.  Neither did any of the money donated for an election ad was included on the declarations of any of the candidates endorsed by in this ad.

 The roots of Voices are clearly in the Community Associations of the pre-2005 period when the "Coalition of Community Associations" was born.  It was publicly shown as an umbrella group of the various Community Associations, a good method of organizing and strengthening these associations which which often dominated by a small group of people with no  formal elections.

The Community Associations were meant to be non-partisan organizations since it has to represent all residents in an area. Strictly, non-partisan means separate from established and federal or provincial parties.  But although the Mayor's slate is really an arm of the NDP, the community associations have developed as anti Mussatto organizations but also with a strong NDP presence.  I like to think of them as NDPers who are anti-development as opposed to Mussatto's NDPers who are pro-development.

The non-partisan aspect became a tool for people within the community associations to "gatekeep".   They were intent on running and wanted the titles  provided by the community associations but needed to suppress the attraction or development of any competition to their personal electoral runs.  The Community Associations suffered from the actions of these gatekeepers.  New associations formed around the electoral needs of new candidates to use community concern such as the Low Level Road issue to get themselves media attention.

In the above Coalition leaflet from you can see many of the names of those who have run and some elected in 2005, 2008 and 2011 and those from the endorsement ads paid for by Voices and prior incarnations of Voices which was the electoral arm of the community associations.  With many of the serious actives focused on Voices as their electoral organization and the take over of Council, the actual community associations withered.

In 2011, the Council passed recommendation #17 from the Task Force on Civic Engagement which was designed to help residents become active in the community associations and make them more responsive to the community as a whole rather than just a few.

Reach Out To Community Associations

 #17: That the City adopt a policy to formally recognize community associations that 

meet established criteria that include open membership within a defined geographical area with non-overlapping boundaries with other similar 

associations, the holding of advertised general meetings and the election of officers. The policy should have provisions for these formally recognized associations to receive support from the City that could include: 

a) Provide a listing of Recognized Community Associations on the City web site, links to their web pages and information about their general 

meetings; 

b) Provide meeting space in City facilities; and 

c) Continue to provide community associations with notices of developments 

in their geographic area, as well as notices of meetings on City-wide issues.

Unfortunately, the community associations had entropied too much and the gatekeepers prevented renewal. If you do a google search as would a new resident would, do you even find them? Do any have a web page? The Grand Blvd being the strongest and having a core of residential areas which is the most active is the strongest.  The Lonsdale Citizens Association covers the largest part of the city's population is still going on.  The rest don't really have an association aside from a couple of people who use titles.

Next up, the long awaited 2014 election preview!

A recap and analysis of the Council election of 2011

One thing I noticed working on, campaign managing and running in elections in Windsor, Saanich, Victoria and North Van the results always sort people in four groups. The plateaus define the groups. In the CNV, last time, there was 19 candidates running for six Council positions.  There are couple of "things that should make you go Hmmm.."  Amanda Nichol received the most union donations of someone who ran for a councillor seat.  In fact,  unions covered most of her spending, over 80%.  Craig Keating, already been nominated for the provincial NDP campaign didn't receive as much from the unions as Amanda did. Linda Buchanan, an HEU union member didn't get as union money as Amanda did.  Hmmm.

Amanda is a dues paying full member of CUPE 389, the city hall union through her employment by the Rec Commission.  There is a law that requires that a candidate go on a leave of absence until after the election but the Chief Electoral Officer (the old City Clerk) did not require that of her as she interpreted anyone who worked for an organization like the Rec Commission or the Library as not actually being City employees so not required to take a Leave of Absence.  There is no appeal of rulings like this but there will be when Elections BC gains oversight power this spring.  If a CUPE 389 member were not required to take a leave, they would not be legally required to resign their employment and thus union membership if elected to Council.  That is a very serious matter.

First, there is what I call Category 1 candidates.
                                           Expenses       Union Donations Rec'd       Developer Donation Rec'd
Don Bell            3901     $13,179.51         0                                        0
Linda Buchanan 3790    $14,692.76         $1650                                $3300
Craig Keating     3642    $15,438.24         $2950                               $2650
Rod Clark          3106      $6,208.38          0                                        0
Pam Bookham    2986     $7,297.26           0                                        0
Guy Heywood     2792     $9,067.00           0                                        0
Cheryl Leia          2626      $11,149.53         $2,050                               $4050
Bob Fearnley       2397       $6,645.59           0                                       $1000
------------------------
Plateau 1/2 674 votes
-----------------------
Second, there is the Category 2 candidates.

Juliana Buitenhuis  1885    $10,765.36          $2150                                 $500
Amanda Nichol     1723    $5,558.82            $4600                                 0
Yashar Khalighi     1454    $17,626.74             0                                      0

-------------------------------------
Plateau 2/3 504 votes
-------------------------------------
Third, there are the Category 3 candidates.

Elizabeth Foder    950    $4,898                   0                                        0
Bill Duncan           805    $2379.75               0                                        0
Glen Miller            779    $4033.13               0                                        0
Joe Heilman           754   $1253.94                0                                       0

-----------
Plateau 3/4 475 votes
-----------
Finally there is the Category 4 candidates.

John Hutchinson   379    $0            
Ron Sostad          272     $0      
Carson Polly        250      $250
Behgam Rabbini   239       $0

My larger spreadsheet has lines on it as whether they did newspaper ads, did mass mailouts, had leaflets at all candidate's meetings and whether they ran as a slate or were endorsed by one.  I want to do a larger piece on slates prior a predication blog as really it is the slates that drive the candidate recruitment.

Look at the money spent and you can see how it influences candidates, it's not just that about $5000 is required for a run, it's if you don't have the level of funding to buy some kind of mailout, ads, you'll end up in Group 3 or 4.  Council just passed a policy asking candidates to refuse donations from unions and developers but was this just a political tactic to defund opponents?  Voices endorsed Rod Clark in 2008 when he accepted a large union donation and Amanda Nichol (who spoke for the motion at during public input to Council) when she accepted a large union donation in 2011. Since they believe that such donations corrupt members of Council, one wonders why they accepted them in the past.  One wonders why they kept it secret until after the election so voters could cast their vote with this knowledge.

Back to the groupings,of course, Elizabeth spent close to $5000 but finished in Group 3, the top of it though.  Yashar did get in group 2 but spend more than anything other candidate. Really only the top nine people did newspaper ads and mass mailings.  What about the slates?  Elizabeth got an endorsement from Voices, spent a decent amount, ran on a serious platform rather the lightweight "show the flag" drivel.   Why did she not finish in Group 2 or higher?  Let's look at the slates.

Don Bell    Voices endorsed and Union endorsed (but no funding)
Linda Buchanan NDP slate and Union slate
Craig Keating NDP slate and Union slate
Rod Clark  Voices slate 
Pam Bookham Voices slate
Guy Heywood Voices endorsed
Cheryl Leia NDP and Union slate
Bob Fearnley Ind

Juliana Buitenhuis  NDP slate
Amanda Nichol Voices slate and Union slate
Yashar Khalighi  Ind


Elizabeth Fodor   Voices endorsed


I refer to the NDP slate when some in Voices are NDP as well.  It could be referred to as official NDP slate or the Mayor's slate.  Voices has been around for about 8 years, maybe longer since that's when I moved to NVan and noticed them. Different names but they put an "approved voting" ad in the North Shore News the day before EDay. I like to think of the two groups and Council in parliamentary terms.  Mussatto was elected Mayor in 2005 but has had a minority govt so far.

Voices is really the political or electoral arm of Community Associations.  Pam was President of the Grand Blvd Assn, Ivan when he ran in 2008 was the head of the Lonsdale Citizen's Assn and Amanda now in the NV South Slope Community Assn now.  The Voices brain trust feels that 6 people must be on their list so that votes don't migrate to the other slate so they endorse the loose Federal Liberal slate of Heywood and Bell.  Fearnley used to be on the Voices endorsements as part of the Federal Lib group but Voices dropped him and he lost the election.

So why the Voices slate and Voices endorsed distinction?   Those on the Voices slate were on it from the start, those endorsed are added in later to fill out the slate and are not even asked. Voices never registered as a political party but at least as a third party electoral group since they spend money and collect donations.  Registered in 2011 but in 2008 they were taken to task by the Chief Electoral Officer for violating the electoral law.

In the inside baseball world of the Council Chambers, wannabe candidates are maneuvering on the field  to who will be on the ballot in a year.  We have the Mayor's NDP slate, the Voices NDP slate perhaps they will include the Federal Liberal sub-slate or perhaps they will be somewhat independent or more focused on their main objective, Andrew Saxton.  For the first time in North Van, a legally registered Electoral Organization has emerged with their party name on the ballot. It's safe to say all the next Councillors will come from these groups.

Can you believe it? 370 days to the next election!

Are you excited, well probably not as much as I and inside baseball players.  This week I want to put a few articles out leading to one prediction one on the 15th, exactly a year to election day.

First, the issue of the Translink referendum is probably the biggest game changer in this generation. In the City last time, 6828 people voted of 33415 voters, 21.2%.  I bet 10,000 will vote next time, maybe more depending on the how the question is written. The provincial turnout was over 60% but defending ourselves against the NDP drove the increase there.

Mayor Watts of Surrey and Councillor Meggs of Vancouver want it to be non-binding vote. The Los Angeles example that it will probably be modeled after was binding but the question was announced 3 years prior to the referendum.  They implemented a .5% increase to the sales tax, here probably restricted to the Metro Vancouver. We just got rid of the increase in HST, would we approve this increase?

It is likely to be binding so the Provincial Government can't take blame for the increase. The Mayors Council and Metro oppose the whole idea of a referendum as they have floating a trial balloon of increasing the sales tax which would go to Metro and municipal governments.

When we see a question we figure all that out but if we on the North Shore will probably be asked to fund a Skytrain to UBC and Skytrains or an LRT on the other side of Vancouver. If hear about a third Seabus again, they lost my vote after they put one in place but took it away after the Olympics was finished. I don't trust the fatcats of Translink and I don't think I'm alone in this.

Right now I'm more interested in how a dramatic turnout increase will affect our election.  Will the amount of tax hating No voters change the makeup of the CNV and DNV councils.  Will the amount of transit users voting for more money to the system change the makeup in that way?  Will the increased turnout help or hurt the chances of Unite North Van?

Who knows now or maybe the votes are counted.

Council initiates donation policy which can't be enforced

Last night Council passed a motion:

WHEREAS the Provincial Government's recent effort to reform local 
government elections did not deal with the source of election campaign funds; 

AND WHEREAS the appearance of a conflict of interest is created when 
developers and unions that make significant contributions to election 
campaigns of candidates for Council also have matters that come before 
Council and that whether or not these conflicts are permitted in law, they harm 
the reputation of Council and impair the legitimacy of its decisions; 

BE IT RESOLVED THAT while this resolution does not have the force of law, 
the City of North Vancouver strongly urges all candidates for election to 
Council to abstain from accepting donations from developers with projects or 
potential projects before Council or from labour unions that represent 
employees of the City; and 

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED THAT a copy of this resolution be forwarded to 
the other Metro Vancouver municipalities, UBCM and the Provincial Ministry of 
Community, Sport and Cultural Development. 

This motion is not intended to discourage modest personal contributions from 
citizens who are employees of property development companies or individual 
members of unions. It is intended to discourage organizations with a direct 
pecuniary interest in matters before Council from being significant contributors 
to the funding of elections to City Council. 

It is unclear on how this will be implemented, probably just a copy of the motion will go out with the nomination packages.

Many VOICES reps spoke for the motion during public input I put the below comment on the VOICES website this morning;

George Pringle
November 5, 2013 at 10:18am

Perhaps in spirit of the motion, which passed, Voices should not endorse candidates who have received donations in the two elections by the city hall union or developers? In the last election Amanda Nichol was almost entirely funded by her union CUPE 389 and VOICES hero Rod Clark was funded by same union two elections ago.

Amanda joined her "brothers and sisters" in receiving an endorsement and a stack of cash, Darrel Mussatto, Craig Keating, Linda Buchanan, Juliana Buitenhuis, Cheryl Leia and Amanda were on their list, it was mailed out to NDP and union member and served as the undeclared and unregistered NDP slate. Featured on a few websites as well.

The disclosure statement by Rod Clark for his 2005 Mayor's run is long gone from the City website and I bet a look through the donations would show those in the development community.

The Provincial government will be putting a Bill in the House in the spring, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act but is waiting until the election of 2017 to put in laws restricting donations and imposing expense limits.  Federal and Provincial law put in a per voter system of $1.09 per voter.  The list had almost 32,000 voters last time so only the Mayor's re-election campaign would be impacted by this.  If he does decide to run.  A run against Andrew Saxton is possible.

Since disclosure on donors was made 120 days after the election, most voters did not know Amanda was a union candidate along with Mussatto's slate so during the next vote it is their only opportunity for this fact to influence their vote. Making this even stranger, there is a provision in the Local Government Act requiring employee of a municipality to take a leave of absence from the time they submit nomination papers to the end of the election.  Amanda did not.  City staff ruled that since she worked for the Rec Commission this didn't apply to her even though she was a member of CUPE 389 as that was a division of the City like the Library. The effect of this ruling went further since employees have to resign if elected but since the City did not consider her an employee we could have an 389 union rep on the Council who would be voting on personnel matters and the union contract.  A good number of City employees could use this loophole to influence Council.

In the case of Rod Clark, it was probably a case of political games and I heard that the Mayor has a word with CUPE and the BC Federation of Labour that Rod was not really union friendly and should not receive union funding.  He did not get a donation in 2011.

So VOICES replied to me on their website;

northvancityvoices

November 5, 2013 at 12:20 pm

We're more interested in what candidates do going forward from now on, not so much what donation they accepted for past elections (when accepting such donations wasn't as much a controversial issue). If we decline to support any candidate who has ever accepted a donation from either a union or a developer, our list of endorsed candidates will be very short and probably very inexperienced.


Or, to put it another way, a candidate's history of funding is just one of several criteria we will use to decide which ones to endorse. This is, of course, assuming that Voices will endorse any candidate.



Ah, wait, didn't you start off by asking 3 Councillors to recuse themselves based on their past donations?  Is the Mayor under different rules than your candidates?

Whether the VOICES people knew of Amanda's union endorsement and union funding is unsure but as I said before there are 3 groups in municipal elections in the City. A NDP group under Mussatto who is pro-development, a NDP group under VOICES that is anti-development and a Liberal group of 3 (Bell, Heywood and Fearnley).  Is there any wonder why the City can't reduce it's spending?


Since during the next election, Elections BC will have a supervisory role, rulings made by local staff in the City will be able to be challenged with Elections BC.  If this is the thin edge of the wedge of CUPE taking over our Council through the back door, it may be necessary to apply for a Judical Review on this matter to reverse the City's ruling.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery but at least get the facts right

Bill Bell said to me that I should take it as a complement but some confusion has risen as some have attributed statements in www.cnvwatch.blogspot.com to me when this blog http://northvancouncilwatch.blogspot.ca is mine. I have been publishing it since November of 2011 to replace a former blog which I did on and off for a few years.

I don't know if an anonymous someone was trying to impersonate me or just imitate me and the Mayor had said some confusing things to me as he thought I had posted an article on his potential re-election.  He has since apologized although I didn't think he said anything inappropriate. A class act our Mayor! I'd vote for him if he came on board with amalgamation.

It was obviously not mine as in an article on the North Van Urban Forum's Design Jam, he or she goes on a rant about it being an example of CNV bureaucracy and spending gone wild.  In fact, as most people know the North Van Urban Forum (link on the front page of my blog) is a private organization who worked hard to help create a waterfront area that our residents can be happy about.

He or She claims to live on Grand Blvd and started this blog almost a year ago when I was on an extended visit to my parents' home.  I doubt anymore who actually "watches" Council meetings from the Chambers could make the constant factual mistakes made on this blog.

One bit of advice to this anonymous author, come out of the dark and stand by your words.

The Province changes election law

First, the Local Elections Campaign Financing Act will be in place but the law on expense limits will wait until the following election in November 2017.  Disclosure and registration by third party advertisers will be in place. In North Van electoral slates who pretend to be independent groups of candidates should be revealed as sponsorship information is tightened.

Second, Elections BC will be formally involved so that appeals can made on rulings of the local staff person who works with Council daily.

Third, Electoral Organizations, like Unite North Van, must record expenses for the whole calendar 2014 year.  If one of the slates, attempt to become a Party, all their spending must be recorded as of the 1st of January.

Fourth, if the current slates attempt to operate as a group of independent candidates to avoid the requirements of the law, that third party must register with sponsorship identification, authorization statements and contact details.  

Finally, all candidates must make a Solemn Declaration with their nomination papers as part of the filing process.  This should require a notarized letter and cost a small fee and diminish the number of candidates.

With all this in mind, let's play the who is going to run next time.  I have already been advised that my running would just get the NDP elected in a majority.   I became a Reformer in federal politics with a bunch of little Mulroneyrites saying the same darn thing, I see it as self serving, they are coming from their own self interest.  Further, I see local politics being dominated by the NDP.  NDPers under Mussatto who are pro mass development and another slate who are people who mostly NDP supporters who are more anti mass development.  At end of the day they both want to increase our taxes, they just disagree on what to spend it on.

The blog article on who will probably run will wait until one year before the election, November 15th.

28 Oct Council Meeting

During Public Input 4 past candidates made points and one person I think will be a candidate next year, Kerry Morris, challenged the Chief Administration Officer, in fact without calling him a liar, did so without using that specific word. See Kerry Morris vs the LCE article for more info.

Ivan Leonard, 2008 candidate, talked about the Business Improvement Association and recommended that a Council grant of $60,000 be returned to the taxpayers.

John Harvey, a former school board candidate talked about Police Board meetings.

I, a candidate for Mayor in 2022, appeared to ask rhetorically, since this is not a question period, when the CUPE 389 contract would be done. It expired almost 2 years ago.

Amanda Nichol, a council candidate, spoke about a Notice of Motion submitted by Councillor Heywood. She wanted to for the debate not be one of subsizing housing vs rec centers. Of course, as this is a Notice of Motion, the actual debate will be next meeting.

The North Van Urban Forum reported results of their "Design Jam focused on the waterfront.

The Presentation House Gallery laid out their plan and business case.  This is discussed in my article, "

Councillor Bookham questioned about the size of the proposed building. She also received confirmation that there would be no parking as part of their site.  City giving 2.5 million plus the land.  I have still not heard whether any of the old land is being sold to fund this new gallery.

Councillor Heywood asked if the new design would fit in to the nautical theme of the rest of the waterfront. It seemed not.

Councillor Clark asked if there had to be another coffee shop in the facility.  It looks so. He also asked if the increased fundraising to support operating costs  is reasonable.  Of course, the rep thought so, it's his report.

The Mayor set up the slowest pitch possible to give Reid some time to brag about the gallery.  Why?  It didn't seem like the gallery funding was in danger and needed the Mayor to play games.

  

Approve my building or dolphins will die!

All amenities gained by the City should be given as a cash contribution to one Central Fund with pre-approved "big ticket" items being the receipt such as a new Harry Jerome Rec Center.

Lets say we have a shady developer who proposes a building or series of buildings that seriously violate the Official Community Plan, being to dense, too high and far too much of everything. How will they ever make their skyhigh profits and leave while North Van citizens live with the various negative effects of their project.  Crowding, traffic and the destruction of sight lines are just a few.

First, these developer will donate money to a majority of members of Council.  Not enough to raise suspicions of bribery but enough to make them grateful and establish the kind of relationship that shady developers understand.

Second, they will find a "cause" and a local group to campaign it.  Saving dolphins from being trapped in aquariums for example, anything to deflect the attention away from the project itself. This group of activists will make presentation videos of trapped and dying dolphins that will bring a tear to the eye and those who oppose the 100 floor building will look evil monsters.

Third, they will come to the public hearing and counter every reasoned argument against the project with "But what about the dolphins? Don't you care about the dolphins?"  Animal rights activists will make from West Van or New West will speak at the public hearing and make it appear like actual North Van citizens are in support of the building and then they will go to Vancouver and protest the high buildings there.

Last, Council will approve of the project as it has taken a while so must be okay.

Museum Monday (Foot of Lonsdale Phase 1)

There will a recap of the Urban Forum's design jam, now that it looks like the Council will go in a different direction.  A shout out for Ben and Tyler and NVUF for trying to do something different in this town.

http://www.cnv.org/attach/2013%2010%2028%20item%2007PP.pdf

It also looks like the the new gallery will be not be in the old pipe building in the center of the what will probably be a public square east of the current proposed site.

http://www.cnv.org/attach/2013%2010%2028%20item%2008PP.pdf

This is part of the what brings people to the waterfront area but it will not be the number one draw.  Read through the design jam to see if there is the kernel of an idea in there.  Despite the appearance of the usual suspects who focus on just one component of open space and oppose the Collier's report which focuses on retail "cafe" space and a small expansion of the hotel space, typifying it as an entirely new hotel project.  Keep an eye on Sandra Grant and Sandra Hudson who may be candidates for Council as part of an Urban Forum slate in one year.  But surmising about the election will wait until my November 15th article "One year to go".

http://download.isiglobal.ca/cnv/archive_2013-10-07.mp4.html?start=00:02:56

So we left to wonder what will be the "big draw" to get public into this area.  Something that will drawn people to the museum and other features so they will spend money in the museum "Bristro wine bar, a juice bar and a yogurt type business.
Mayor has floated a couple of ideas to start people thinking, a branch of the Vancouver aquarium although keeping sea life prisoner is strange way of showcasing North Vancouver and a ferris wheel.  Before you laugh look a look at London England, their ferris wheel catches the eye.  In that spirit, I would suggest a balloon ride, a kind of trial balloon.


The City is going to own the Gallery and is putting $250,000 from the Lower Lonsdale Amenity Reserve Fund towards the fundraising drive.  This is the second installment of a $500,000 donation by the City. The City had committed a total of $400,000 which has now grown to $500,000. This does not include free staff time. This is part of $2.5 million project plan item for the relocation of the gallery.  Presumably, $2 million is intended to be raised to repay the City for the building expenses. The project is contingent on it. Like the maritime museum, it also could fail due to a lack of funding.

http://www.cnv.org/attach/2013%2010%2028%20item%2008%20-%20Business%20Case%20Report.pdf

It should be noted in the Business that it is heavily dependant on government support and fundraising.  The City has told them that they will only get the same (and not increasing) subsidy as the present gallery.  $145,000 for Year 1 but the federal subsidy ($140,000) and the provincial subsidy ($145,000).  They anticipate that federal and provincial support will increase but if some of it doesn't come, you know our Council will step in with extra cash.

I assume the Year 1 will be budget year 2016 as that is when the project is intended to be done and the fundraising team will have "gone to the well" a lot to actually build the building which would impact the annual giving campaign. So they require donations of $300,000 a year to meet their budget.

Kerry Morris vs the Lonsdale Energy Corporation

Kerry doesn't have a good opinion of the LEC.  He appeared during the public hearing at Finance Committee last night to make a presentation titled "LEC Loans (past, present and future).  By the end of his time, Kerry and the Chief Administration Officer didn't even agree to disagree, Mr Tollstam said he was wrong and Kerry said he (and the city) was wrong.

For those who are not aware of the LEC, renters like me who for now are not affected by it, the LEC can be best thought of a municipal Crown Corporation as it is a corporation owned entirely by the CNV, really us the taxpayers.  The term does not really apply as most Crown Corps, like Canada Post is the Government (Federal or Provincial) is a service that the government operates because a normal business would not be able to operate that service.

The LEC is a corporation wholely owned by the CNV where it has thrust itself into the marketplace to complete against a Provincial Crown Corp and several real corporations.  It is part of the "green" changes to old way of doing things which of course usually means the taxpayers have subsidize it.  But the LEC tells us they set the rates below the price charged by BC Hydro and others.  Councillor Heywood pointed out the assumptions made to determine what the average person pays is inflated.  It really a mute point as the Council requires that any new structures over 10,000 sq ft have to use the LEC.  So there is no competition or free marketplace.

Going back to the outstanding loan issue, this needs to be broken down.  Kerry states that the LEC "has received public loans in excess of $10,664,000 from the City" and that "there currently no realistic plans in place to repay these funds."

First, lets get $2,000,000 off the table.  The CNV loaned the LEC this amount to start the corporation.  It is reported every year in the Statement of Financial Information as money owed.  There is no indication of when it will be paid back.  The CNV made this an interest free loan so the amount never increases.  Neither party seems to be concerned if this money is ever paid back to the taxpayers.  Seeing the LEC coming back to the trough this year for more loans indicates the likelihood of repayment.

Second, there is the question of staff.  Kerry claims that the LEC has no employees and all work performed on behalf of LEC is currently being paid out of the City's payroll.  The CAO said every bit of time spent by city staff was charged to LEC and was paid for.  He didn't say whether there was a running bill or line of credit or all  bills were paid when incurred.

So in this, they both may be right.  One thing I can say safely is that the LEC is not a real corporation.  If paying the CNV for staff duties, they avoid the HR costs of staff.  In addition, if the LEC were a CNV department, they would be subject to democratic rules and public scrutiny.  Kerry has made them face the issue in public and it was the LEC that contributed to the defeat of former Councillor Fearnley.  The CAO has said that the issue will come before Council soon but will it be a secret meeting where it is voted on without public discussion?

One rule applies, "if matters have to be done in secret, it's because politicians and bureaucrats have something to hide.  

If LEC can price their product lower than their competitors without subsidization, then they can exist in the marketplace and the City could sell the asset.   Of course, part of their success in attracting clients is based on the City's ability to force taxpayers to become customers.  If Kerry's suspicions are shown to be correct, then it is another green con job that taxpayers are paying the price for.

NOTE: This blog has delayed my article on the lack of Community Associations in the City.

21st Oct Cash is always better than anticipation

Bringing my laptop to meeting allows me post right away rather than the "I'll get around to it during the first part of the week." 

The saga of the Onni housing for My Own Spaces ended with no debate as they received a report which seemed to call all the bidders to submit further paperwork.   The motion with the Mayor and Councillors Keating and Buchanan voting against was:

6. Land Matter – File: 5040-03-01 

 Report: Manager, Lands and Business Services and Community 
Planner, Community Development, September 16, 2013 

PURSUANT to the report of the Manager, Lands and Business Services 
and Community Planner, Community Development, dated September 16, 
2013, entitled "1308 Lonsdale: Affordable Housing and Childcare 
Expression of Interest": 

THAT staff be directed to invite S.U.C.C.E.S.S., Hollyburn Family Services 
Society, the YMCA Metro Vancouver, and My Own Space Housing 
Society Connections, to respond to a Request for Proposal for the lease or 
ownership of the affordable housing amenity and report back to Council; 

THAT staff be directed to invite Lonsdale Creek Daycare Society and the 
North Shore Neighbourhood House to respond to a Request for Proposal 
for the lease or ownership of the childcare community amenity and report 
back to Council; 

AND THAT the report of the Manager, Lands and Business Services and 
Community Planner, dated September 16, 2013, with respect to a "Land 

Matter", remain in the Closed session.

Note. I have corrected this after reading the draft minutes. Without being in the secret meeting, I laid out what happened.
1.  Councillor Keating and the NDP councillors tried to assign two $5 million dollar facilities in the upcoming Onni building to two organisations, the North Shore Neighbourhood House and My Own Spaces.

2. Council forced the issue to an Expression of Interest, a process which would examine among other things, the qualifications to ensure the winner would best able to provide the services.

3. Obviously by the motion, the Lonsdale Creek Daycare Society put in an application, along with the NS Neighborhood House and S.U.C.C.E.S.S., the Holyburn Family Services, the YMCA Metro Vancouver and the My Own Spaces Housing Society Connections.

4. It is likely that under the requirements of the bidding the MOSHSC did not qualify as they had formed a lobby group which as Councillor Keating said "did the heavy lifting" lobbied hard during public meetings.  Not actually running a facility which was required. It was doubtful that a lobby group of mostly West Van parents would be given this facility where mostly their own children would get the housing during any formal process.

So this saga continues, out of public view.

---------  

A couple of public hearings, one being the five story replacement for the old Nova Grocery on the corner of Lonsdale and 12th. It is a little too tall, 4 stories seemed right. Not a 12 to 24 monstrosity at least.

A portion of the bonus density was granted by the "Employment Generating" clause. During the 1308 Lonsdale public hearing I questioned this citing the example of the old North Shore News building which still sits mostly empty having generated no new employment.

The presentation site for selling condos  at the Prescott about to close, an office for Blueshore is temporarily there and a temp site for a TD office while they renovations at their main site is all that is there now.  When the last chance signs for the sale of Prescott condos come down soon and their temporary space use ends, it will probably be empty.

I have a feeling that trying extend the business district past 13th is what the problem is.  They are building but people who buy or even rent the space hoping the customers will come, are not even coming themselves.  If this is a factor it is time that Council and staff realize it rather than repeating the same mistake.

There was talk about medical clinic or dentist's office anticipated in that building and the developers are "anticipating" the same for this site.  It would be better if the civic amenity cash was increased for the bonus density  rather than it be based on something that may not happen.  Cash is always better than anticipation.

Councillor Bookham asked if staff has been approached concerning the sale of the Masonic temple site and found out there had been none.

Councillor Heywood asked whether there was an anchor tenant and they do not have one, just anticipation.   Developers who get to this point without an anchor tenant is playing a risky game.

Staff's opinion is that while offices are more vacant, you have to look at the ratio of retail to commercial   Since commercial units are harder to get rented, one should build more of them to give them the proper quota of the formula as that is more important to increase business tenants.  But ever let them talk to business people as I've never heard such nonsense in my life.  Hello, the law of supply and demand!

Councillor Clark pointed out the bonus density increased the size the OCP limits by 40% and when the Council discusses caps in the new bonus density policy, the point will have to be resolved.

The Mayor brings up the same old that so close to Lions Gate Hospital there should be some medical use quickly.  We have heard that many times over the past decade.

It passed with Councillors Bookham and Bell opposed.

Overall, the creation of the Lonsdale canyon is on its way.

A heartfelt statement about a single lot being turned into a duplex which will make a young woman homeless was up next.  Councillors talked more about affordable housing which is now officially an oxymoron, than they talked the project which they all saw as an individual standing in the way of inevitable progress and voted her out on the street. 

Kerry Morris made the Finance meeting snap, crackle and pop a bit which ended with the Chief Administrative Officer think Kerry was wrong and Kerry thinking he had been lied to.

I've got to do a long blog on the Lonsdale Energy Corporation which at least tries to clarify the situation.