I’m very excited about this.
i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.
[quote=“leroy”]i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.[/quote]
That’s interesting. In 2011 those appointments were conducted in the public meeting; they did not appear to have been decided in advance. Councillor Kinney nominated councillor Ashley as one of the two SQCRD representatives, beating councillor Thorkelson to the punch before she could nominate Mayor Mussallem. The result was that the council broke with the long held tradition that the Mayor holds one of the two appointments, the other being councillor Kinney.
[quote=“leroy”]i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.[/quote]
ha, ha. Yes, because we all must know that someone said, “I appoint so-and-so.” And then someone else said “I appoint so-and-so.” And then this particular councillor accepted . . . and zzzzzzzz.
You really should get out to a good play or something.
[quote=“drummerboy”]
[quote=“leroy”]i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.[/quote]
ha, ha. Yes, because we all must know that someone said, “I appoint so-and-so.” And then someone else said “I appoint so-and-so.” And then this particular councillor accepted . . . and zzzzzzzz.
You really should get out to a good play or something.[/quote]
That’s an interesting take since the central complaint about Jack’s mayoral run was his “in camera” handling of city council. The first chance Brain gets to go in camera, that’s precisely what he and the new council does – despite not needing to. I guess it was a problem for Jack to do it, but wonder boy does it and it’s a “non-issue”. I voted for him, but that’s not what I was expecting … at least so soon.
[quote=“drummerboy”]
[quote=“leroy”]i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.[/quote]
ha, ha. Yes, because we all must know that someone said, “I appoint so-and-so.” And then someone else said “I appoint so-and-so.” And then this particular councillor accepted . . . and zzzzzzzz.
You really should get out to a good play or something.[/quote]
Why shouldn’t we know? It may be a small thing to you, but who is aligning with who? As per “BTravenn”'s post.
[quote=“drummerboy”]
[quote=“leroy”]i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.[/quote]
ha, ha. Yes, because we all must know that someone said, “I appoint so-and-so.” And then someone else said “I appoint so-and-so.” And then this particular councillor accepted . . . and zzzzzzzz.
You really should get out to a good play or something.[/quote]
Better and more courteous advice would be to go to this page and check whether a “special council meeting” is on the list for the pertinent date: < princerupert.ca/cityhall/cou … gs/agendas >. There is no record of a closed meeting yesterday.
Usually the only agenda item for a special meeting is a resolution to exclude the public under s90 of the Community Charter. Occasionally there is a special meeting to consider new bylaws or amendments, which must be open to the public.
One such meeting is scheduled for tomorrow to consider whether to pass two bylaw amendments, one to designate a large part of Lot 444 for ‘Industrial Use’ under the Official Community Plan and the other to designate those lands for LNG use (M-1) under the zoning bylaw:
< princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … Agenda.pdf >.
It will be interesting to see whether the new council re-thinks the issue or simply adopts what the previous council approved for first and second readings.
There are errors in the recommended resolutions in 3(a) and 3(b) of the agenda; they read “THAT Council give Third Reading and Adopt” the two bylaw amendments. Third reading and Adoption cannot be done at the same meeting. The Community Charter requires: “135(3) There must be at least one day between the third reading and the adoption of a bylaw”:
< bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … section135 >.
It will be interesting to see who if anyone on council has been doing their homework and picks up on those errors.
Just so I can understand. What exactly was done behind closed doors?
When appointments are made isn’t that a sort of personnel issue. In September, I applied for and was appointed by city council to be a trustee of our library board. I have no idea how I was selected but I imagine the decision was done behind closed doors and the announcement made at a public meeting. But maybe not. Maybe I missed the public meeting where councillors thrashed out the pros and cons of DWhite as library trustee, where all my skills and flaws were laid bare.
Behind closed doors people can be more honest about who should be doing what and say things that might not get said in public.
At the end of the day, I just want to know who is on the various boards not who picked whom and who voted for whom.
[quote=“DWhite”]Just so I can understand. What exactly was done behind closed doors?
I don’t know, because it was behind closed doors and it seems you don’t know either.[/quote]
[quote=“DWhite”]Just so I can understand. What exactly was done behind closed doors?
When appointments are made isn’t that a sort of personnel issue. In September, I applied for and was appointed by city council to be a trustee of our library board. I have no idea how I was selected but I imagine the decision was done behind closed doors and the announcement made at a public meeting. But maybe not. Maybe I missed the public meeting where councillors thrashed out the pros and cons of DWhite as library trustee, where all my skills and flaws were laid bare.
Behind closed doors people can be more honest about who should be doing what and say things that might not get said in public.
At the end of the day, I just want to know who is on the various boards not who picked whom and who voted for whom.[/quote]
Exactly.
And Mussallem sucks.
[quote=“leroy”]i watched the appointment to committees today.
Interesting enough the appointees were pre-determined in the proverbial “back room”.
As a first exercise of the new council , the “Transparency” that was such an emotional boogeyman during the election campaign has been quickly thrown aside by the new mayor.[/quote]
[quote=“BTravenn”]
That’s interesting. In 2011 those appointments were conducted in the public meeting; they did not appear to have been decided in advance. [/quote]
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
That’s an interesting take since the central complaint about Jack’s mayoral run was his “in camera” handling of city council. The first chance Brain gets to go in camera, that’s precisely what he and the new council does – despite not needing to. I guess it was a problem for Jack to do it, but wonder boy does it and it’s a “non-issue”. I voted for him, but that’s not what I was expecting … at least so soon.[/quote]
[quote=“uartz1949”]
Why shouldn’t we know? It may be a small thing to you, but who is aligning with who? As per “BTravenn”'s post.[/quote]
My question was somewhat rhetorical. People seem to be worried about a lack of transparency. But what isn’t transparent? The committee members were announced. What else do we need to know?
[quote=“TerriblePerson”]
ha, ha. Yes, because we all must know that someone said, “I appoint so-and-so.” And then someone else said “I appoint so-and-so.” And then this particular councillor accepted . . . and zzzzzzzz.
You really should get out to a good play or something.
That’s an interesting take since the central complaint about Jack’s mayoral run was his “in camera” handling of city council. The first chance Brain gets to go in camera, that’s precisely what he and the new council does – despite not needing to. I guess it was a problem for Jack to do it, but wonder boy does it and it’s a “non-issue”. I voted for him, but that’s not what I was expecting … at least so soon.[/quote]
That’s an interesting take because the central complaint about Jack was not his in camera stuff - that was directed at council in general. The main complaints regarding Jack were about bungling Watson Island, misleading us about Lot 444, not knowing Citywest wasn’t going to pay a dividend, just making up issues like with the rec centre and the fire department, petty attack ads . . .
Now I don’t see any need to debate all that stuff again but those were the main complaints about Jack.
And I’m going to call lie on your saying you voted for Lee. Didn’t happen. You love Jack. This “I voted for so-and-so but . . .” is a common ploy to make your attack on him seem more valid. Like “gee, he voted for him and yet he’s criticizing him. That makes his criticism mean more.”
[quote=“DWhite”]
My question was somewhat rhetorical. People seem to be worried about a lack of transparency. But what isn’t transparent? The committee members were announced. What else do we need to know?[/quote]
When and how the appointments were decided. There was no notice of a special meeting with the first order of business being to exclude the public.
To close a meeting the council must first pass a resolution in a public meeting, for which notice was given, stating a reason under s90 for closing the meeting (s92 Community Charter).
If a prior meeting was held and that procedure was not followed, the meeting was not properly convened and any decisions made there can be challenged as being invalid.
If the appointments were made other than by council resolution that too raises questions.
The Mayor has authority to establish and appoint people to standing and select committees, but does not have authority to appoint City representatives to the regional district, which is the highest profile of the appointments. The municipal directors on the regional district board are “appointed at pleasure by the council from among its members” (s784 Local Government Act) >. A council can only exercise its powers by resolution or bylaw (s122 Community Charter).
[quote=“DWhite”]
My question was somewhat rhetorical. People seem to be worried about a lack of transparency. But what isn’t transparent? The committee members were announced. What else do we need to know?[/quote]
What the council had to say behind closed doors that they didn’t want the public to hear. You would think Mayor Brain may have wanted to have set a tone for his new administration just to placate his supporters.
[quote=“uartz1949”]
What the council had to say behind closed doors that they didn’t want the public to hear. You would think Mayor Brain may have wanted to have set a tone for his new administration just to placate his supporters.[/quote]
That’s fair comment and you’re part way there, but the underlying question is whether due process was followed. Meetings can be closed for some purposes, but legal procedures have to be followed. Similarly the Mayor cannot make decisions that only the council can make. Elected officials cannot operate outside of the law.
[quote=“drummerboy”]
That’s an interesting take because the central complaint about Jack was not his in camera stuff - that was directed at council in general. The main complaints regarding Jack were about bungling Watson Island, misleading us about Lot 444, not knowing Citywest wasn’t going to pay a dividend, just making up issues like with the rec centre and the fire department, petty attack ads . . .
Now I don’t see any need to debate all that stuff again but those were the main complaints about Jack.
And I’m going to call lie on your saying you voted for Lee. Didn’t happen. You love Jack. This “I voted for so-and-so but . . .” is a common ploy to make your attack on him seem more valid. Like “gee, he voted for him and yet he’s criticizing him. That makes his criticism mean more.”[/quote]
“I’m going to call lie” LOL. Slow down Ezra Levant. That’s a pretty juvenile way to prove a point.
I’m going to call bananas because your argument is b-a-n-a-n-a-s.
I voted for Lee so my criticism does have more meaning. Yes. It is for that reason. I am holding him to accomplishing at least 10 per cent of what he promised. I voted for transparency and expect it. The decision of who sits on which board might not have been an official “in camera” meeting, but it certainly was behind closed doors, and simply announced to the public. That was the main complaint about Jack. It was that he wasn’t transparent enough. Or maybe he wasn’t transitioning this town off whatever the hell Brain was talking about three years ago.
The criticism you levy against Jack is not fair or even accurate. Jack didn’t bungle Watson Island alone since its not his deal to make, but council’s. So if anyone gets slapped for that, its the entire council. In fact every issue you brought up about Jack was council responsibility. His bungle was a team fuck up and its why I voted for Brain.
So yes, I voted for Lee. It doesn’t mean I can’t see inconsistencies about how the previous mayor was judged when seeing how some of you judge the new mayor. You want transparency but don’t dare call for it when the new mayor and his council opt not to do it.
I can make up my onw bananas theory for you, by the way: You didn’t like Jack as a person and thus voted against him for that reason alone. You also have a crush on Lee and thus won’t accept any criticism of him because he’s the special one in your eye (I don’t believe any of this is true. But see how easy it is to discredit someone when you use your own biased opinion to do it?)
Bottom line is I’m not falling for the hype around Lee. I think he was the best of the four candidates for mayor, but I also believe that doesn’t make him saviour status some are trying to give him. His number one skill is being a communicator, not leadership. That might change. But his campaign was partially about transparency and he failed on his first night without much communication as to why. Will that change going forward? Maybe. But a lot of people liked the Herb Pond experience until that went sour.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“uartz1949”]
What the council had to say behind closed doors that they didn’t want the public to hear. You would think Mayor Brain may have wanted to have set a tone for his new administration just to placate his supporters.[/quote]
That’s fair comment and you’re part way there, but the underlying question is whether due process was followed. Meetings can be closed for some purposes, but legal procedures have to be followed. Similarly the Mayor cannot make decisions that only the council can make. Elected officials cannot operate outside of the law.[/quote]
So who adjudicates these “in camera” decisions? The city administrator or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the courts? Is this why we have this Watson Island boondoggle now in the courts?
[quote=“uartz1949”]
So who adjudicates these “in camera” decisions? The city administrator or the Ministry of Municipal Affairs or the courts? Is this why we have this Watson Island boondoggle now in the courts?[/quote]
Those are good questions. The council can have an ‘unofficial’ closed meeting, which is not a duly convened meeting, where they can discuss whatever they want - the condition of the sidewalks, the Grey Cup or potential council appointments - but they cannot make decisions there.
The issue is political rather than legal so long as a resolution is passed in the public meeting approving a decision. The decision is valid, but the appearance of prior discussion can raise questions about why the discussion was not left for the public meeting.
Decisions ‘may’ be made in a closed meeting but only if the subject matter is listed under s90(1) of the Community Charter: < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … #section90 >.
A resolution to close the meeting and stating the basis under s90(1) has to be passed in a public meeting (see s92). Some councils will close part of the public meeting, say to discuss legal advice, then re-open the meeting. Previous councils here have typically held what is technically a public meeting, but the first item is a resolution to close the meeting, so the public meeting will only be for a minute or two.
If a decision was made in a closed meeting without properly closing the meeting or the subject matter was inappropriate, the problem, as you pointed out earlier, is that we don’t know what we don’t know. If information comes to light there are three scenarios.
A citizen can FOI information about the decision. If the council refuses the request, that can be reviewed by the Information and Privacy Commissioner, who can order disclosure to the applicant.
Or, someone can ask a court to review the closed meeting decision. I read one case like that, involving a board member who was disciplined by the Cariboo Regional District. The Judge held that the decision was valid, even though the meeting was not properly closed, but information about the decision could not be withheld. The Judge did not rule out that under other circumstances a decision improperly made in a closed meeting could be quashed as invalid.
The third scenario is for citizens to complain about a decision being made in a closed meeting, such that the council feels compelled politically to report or reconsider the matter in a public meeting.
Now I really don’t know what the fuss is all about.
northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … riety.html
If you go to the 19 minute mark, you can watch the whole proceedings about appointments.
Who is going to be acting mayor at a given time, should be organized ahead of time. So I am guessing that Bob Long or Lee Brain made up a schedule and asked around before presenting it to council for a vote. Why waste time, trying to figure out who will be around when during a council meeting.
As for secondary signing authority, that is hardly an issue that is worthy of much debate so it was spread around.
As for who would serve on the various committees, they were all moved and seconded. Were there discussions ahead of time. Probably. But in some kind of closed formal meeting. No way.
In any organization, people are going to be nominated for certain positions. Do people talk ahead of time. Of course they do. If I would like to serve on a committee, I will ask somebody to nominate me. If I want somebody to serve on a committee, I would ask ahead of time, if they were interested so they are not in the awkward situation of having to decline.
Way too much concern about a non-issue.