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.
Monday 18 November 2013
Sunday 10 November 2013
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.
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.
Tuesday 5 November 2013
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.
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.
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.
Monday 4 November 2013
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.
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.
Sunday 3 November 2013
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)