City Council Tonight

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
41

Just for clarification:

There’s more to this than councillor Thorkelson looking not very happy. There’s an interesting article in North Coast Review that outlines the discussion and points of disagreement between councillor Thorkelson and Mayor Brain in particular.[/quote]

Are you suggesting by way of this disagreement that there is something to the notion that Joy “was not very happy” because “the New Blood has taken over” therefore “she will not have as much influence” and that “she was one who preferred much more behind the scenes meeting”?

Maybe Joy and Lee did disagree over a particular issue but I am not sure if we can draw any other conclusion than they disagreed over a particular issue.

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“DWhite”]… It’s been a week and
By the way, I know previous councils were not as forthcoming about what might have been discussed behind closed doors, but what decisions were ever made behind closed doors.[/quote]

“… there are things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also unknown unknowns – the ones we don’t know we don’t know. And if one looks throughout the history of our country and other free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult ones.” (former US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, although some say he got the idea from political philosopher Jeremy Bentham).[/quote]

Are you making fun of Rumsfeld or are you suggesting that there may have been unknown decisions (city hall decisions) that we don’t know about?

I think I know the answers to both questions but the way speculation has run rampant lately, I just want to make sure.

42

[quote=“DWhite”]Just for clarification:

Are you suggesting by way of this disagreement that there is something to the notion that Joy “was not very happy” because “the New Blood has taken over” therefore “she will not have as much influence” and that “she was one who preferred much more behind the scenes meeting”?
Maybe Joy and Lee did disagree over a particular issue but I am not sure if we can draw any other conclusion than they disagreed over a particular issue.[/quote]

I read the NCR article, but have not watched the video of the meeting, so I don’t know how councillor Thorkelson looked, and hence cannot draw inferences, but I find chookie’s observations about a generational difference and reduced influence to be interesting and at least plausible. I guess we’ll just have to stay tuned.

I would only add that I find it curious that councillor Thorkelson was the only member not appointed to any committees or boards. It’s hard to know what to make of that, except that not having any appointments seems unlikely to increase her influence.

[quote=“DWhite”]
Are you making fun of Rumsfeld or are you suggesting that there may have been unknown decisions (city hall decisions) that we don’t know about?

I think I know the answers to both questions but the way speculation has run rampant lately, I just want to make sure.[/quote]

Well, I don’t know how you could think that you know the answers because neither of those possibilities had crossed my mind.

No, I would never make fun of former Defence Secretary Rumsfeld just because he was a war monger. He was a very smart and interesting guy when in office, and I like his statement about known unknowns and unknown unknowns.

As for City hall, closed meeting decisions are supposed to be known unknowns in that we are supposed to know that there is a closed meeting at which decisions may be made, because a meeting can only be closed by resolution at a public meeting, by citing a very general reason. What they discuss or decide there is otherwise unknown, unless they later choose to make a decision known, which they sometimes do by announcing it at a public meeting. But how much of what was decided is made known and how much remains unknown is itself unknown. So in answer to your question I would say that, yes, of course there are unknown city hall decisions. Otherwise there would be no point in having closed meetings.

I’m not really aware of any rampant speculation, but I note that the council scheduled a meeting for December 8 that was to have been closed to consider unknown personnel matters, but the meeting has been cancelled. So I don’t think that there have been unknown decisions up to this point, but these are still early days and that seems likely to change.
< princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … LATION.pdf >

I only wrote all of this because you asked, and I hope that there is no need for follow up queries.

43

[quote=“BTravenn”]

I only wrote all of this because you asked, and I hope that there is no need for follow up queries.[/quote]

Never feel obliged to answer any question I ask. I won’t be offended.

But I am actually surprised at both your answers. The speculation that I was referring to was that posted on various threads about our council after one week.

I didn’t watch the video and I don’t think it matters. Was Joy passionate in her defense of a particular issue. No doubt. That is part of her strength. Was she unhappy at the way the exchange ended. Perhaps not. I doubt that this will be the last time that Joy or another councilor will be on the losing end of a discussion. Does this mean that she is going to have less influence in the future? Maybe. But that was not the speculation I was referring to. I was referring to the suggestion that she was upset at the New Blood, that she was upset at her declining influence and that she was one of those who liked to make decisions behind closed doors.

It is one thing to speculate about her future influence; it is quite another to speculate about her motives. But maybe I am wrong. Maybe it is OK to speculate about her motives, so I will speculate. Joy will continue to defend strongly one side of a contentious issue regardless of how much influence she may or may not have. Joy is likely quite content to give up some of the committee work to allow the newer councilors a chance to gain more experience. Joy Thorkelson never was and never will be a person who would hide her opinions behind a closed door.

And in reference to closed door decisions, will somebody (not necessarily BTravenn) explain to me what an unknown decision might look like. I always thought that there was a need for closed door meetings for personnel or legal reasons but that decisions still had to be made public.

We all know that at the provincial and federal level a lot of decisions are made in the privacy of caucus or cabinet or in the offices of the Prime Minister or Premier, but that ultimately the decisions still need to be made public usually through parliament or the legislature. But there is also speculation that world governments are actually controlled by a small group of powerful heads of corporations.

Is this what’s going on here. I am pretty cynical when it comes to politics and politicians but perhaps my cynicism hasn’t yet filtered down to municipal politics. What sinister activities are going on behind closed doors and how worried should I be?

And now that Jack and Anna and Gina are out of council what are the ramifications for them should they tell about any “unknown decisions” that were ever made?

44

[quote=“DWhite”]

And in reference to closed door decisions, will somebody (not necessarily BTravenn) explain to me what an unknown decision might look like. I always thought that there was a need for closed door meetings for personnel or legal reasons but that decisions still had to be made public.
…
And now that Jack and Anna and Gina are out of council what are the ramifications for them should they tell about any “unknown decisions” that were ever made?[/quote]

Assuming due process, closed meeting deliberations can be withheld from disclosure for up to 15 years, the same as BC cabinet confidences (s12 FIPPA).

The $18 million agreement between the City and Imperial/Exxon was an example of unknown decision. Why that was released immediately after the election and not before is baffling.

Former council members, like current members, are duty bound to protect closed meeting information until it is discussed at a public meeting or authorized for release. If they release unauthorized information they can be held liable for damages by the municipality (s117 Community Charter).

If they disclose protected personal information, whether it arose at a council meeting or not, they can be charged with an offence under the Freedom of Information & Protection of Privacy Act, whether still in office or not. So far Brian Skakun in Prince George is the only person in BC who has been charged and fined (for releasing personal information about a senior RCMP officer and a civic employee), although the electorate obviously did not hold it against him since he topped the polls in the last election.

As for Joy, I hope that she continues to advocate for environmental issues concerning Lot 444. I think, though, that the council should invite tenders or proposals for future studies in a competitive manner.

45

Feel free to ignore me. I quote you for reference only. Anybody can answer.

The agreement with Exxon is no longer an unknown decision, if in fact there was a decision. I have no idea how things proceeded. Exxon met with the city behind closed doors in which they agreed to pay $18M for a two year period while they considered the viability of doing something with Lot 444. Prior to the meeting to change the zoning all of that information became public and the city then acted on that information by rezoning the land.

Should the meetings with Exxon have been public? I am no expert to answer that question, but I can’t imagine Exxon wanting to publicize some of the negotiating ahead of time. Isn’t that the kind of meeting that should be out of the spotlight. The city gets information that they think is important. They decide to act on that information. A public meeting is called and a decision is made.

I realize that we can’t know what someone doesn’t want us to know, that’s why I asked what an unknown decision MIGHT look like. People can convince me otherwise, but I have no problem with the way Lot 444/Exxon was handled.

No doubt the city can do a better job of passing information on to the public. Why the previous council didn’t publicize the $18M prior to the election might be baffling but who did it hurt except perhaps the incumbents who were running for re-election?

46

I just keep getting more and more suprised! Who would have thought it? All those bright, socially savy and extremely political people that we elected as Mayor and Council. I guess none of them know how to use the telephone or send an email.

47

The agreement with Imperial/Exxon is only partly known. We know that Imperial/Exxon has an option agreement and it is now clear that the agreement provides for a non-refundable $1 million payment, which funded Dr Fagetter’s work, and $18 million for a two year option to purchase. What else is in the agreement?

The NCR article says of councillor Thorkelson: “Her first recommendation was that the LNG proponent undertake to negotiate with the City any noise and light issues.” That is an important issue along with other environment concerns identified by Dr Faggetter, such as impacts on the airshed and the adjacent watershed, eg H2S pollution is not anticipated to be a problem, but NOx emissions are a concern. She also recommended further detailed studies.

To what extent can the City begin to address those issues under the terms of the option agreement? That is unknown. Councillor Thorkelson, who would have attended all of the closed meetings regarding Imperial/Exxon, appears to have concerns that the City’s interests may not be adequately protected. Hence she has proposed further measures. It is hard to discuss that without knowing more about the terms of the agreement.

[quote=“DWhite”]

I realize that we can’t know what someone doesn’t want us to know, that’s why I asked what an unknown decision MIGHT look like. People can convince me otherwise, but I have no problem with the way Lot 444/Exxon was handled.

No doubt the city can do a better job of passing information on to the public. Why the previous council didn’t publicize the $18M prior to the election might be baffling but who did it hurt except perhaps the incumbents who were running for re-election?[/quote]

The first part is not quite true. We can find out what someone does not want us to know because there are obligations under FIPPA to disclose information. The City and whoever it deals with cannot contract out of those disclosure requirements, eg through a confidentiality clause. On numerous occasions the Information & Privacy Commissioner has ordered municipalities (and municipal corporations) to disclose information.

As for the question about harm, really it should be put the other way around. What harm would there be to the City or a third party if information was disclosed to the public. That is essentially the test that the Commissioner applies.

48

I will repeat myself:

I don’t know if people are getting the drift of my comments/questions. Past councils have been criticized about secret meetings and “behind closed door” decisions. And within a week of our current council’s time in office there have been suggestions on this thread that this practice will continue. And the implication in this criticism of secret meetings and closed door decisions is that council has something to hide, that they are cowardly (don’t want scrutiny) or worse.

And as much as I appreciate BTravenn’s expertise on all things to do with city procedure, there are even implications within his remarks. eg We know this much about the agreement but “what ELSE is in the agreement?” (Cue scary music.) And the evidence that there may be something else (or not enough of something else) is Joy (who someone suggested preferred closed meetings) was asking questions to ensure (according to BTravenn) that the city’s interests are adequately protected.

And isn’t that what we would expect from our council?

I want transparency as much as the next guy. But I also want fairness. If we are unhappy with something, we have the simple recourse of asking for it. If we don’t get a satisfactory answer, then certainly complain. I would much prefer that to speculation and innuendo.

49

[quote=“DWhite”]I will repeat myself:

I don’t know if people are getting the drift of my comments/questions. Past councils have been criticized about secret meetings and “behind closed door” decisions. And within a week of our current council’s time in office there have been suggestions on this thread that this practice will continue. And the implication in this criticism of secret meetings and closed door decisions is that council has something to hide, that they are cowardly (don’t want scrutiny) or worse.

And as much as I appreciate BTravenn’s expertise on all things to do with city procedure, there are even implications within his remarks. eg We know this much about the agreement but “what ELSE is in the agreement?” (Cue scary music.) And the evidence that there may be something else (or not enough of something else) is Joy (who someone suggested preferred closed meetings) was asking questions to ensure (according to BTravenn) that the city’s interests are adequately protected.

And isn’t that what we would expect from our council?

I want transparency as much as the next guy. But I also want fairness. If we are unhappy with something, we have the simple recourse of asking for it. If we don’t get a satisfactory answer, then certainly complain. I would much prefer that to speculation and innuendo.[/quote]

I absolutely get your drift and I agree with you. The implications, or spin as I’ve referred to it, have caught my attention as well. Well said.

50

Great post Mr. White! Thank you for so capably articulating something that has been floating around in my brain but not yet gelled.

I do not have a problem when posters take Council, Mayor or the senior staff (CEO, CFO & CA) to task when they screw up. That is holding people accountable and there is an expectation in those jobs that the work you do will be under public scrutiny.

I do mind it when posters screw up themselves and fail to apologize to the people whose reputations have been inpugned. Surely it cannot be that humilating to apologize - hell, we don’t even know who you are!

I also have found over the past number of years that there have been a lot of posts that basically smeared the integrity of the Council and Mayor, but when the post(s) is read closely, there is a lot of smoke but not much in the way of substance. People are, of course, free to say whatever they want. However if you keep ranting the same line without any proofs, it soon becomes stale.

I wish the new Mayor and Council the best of luck. I suspect they are learning a lot of stuff that they did not know about before. While I am sure that they will use media that were not used before to distribute information, I would not be surprised if the actual amount of information coming from Council stays about the same. My sense of the last Council was that probably 95% of the stuff they discussed in closed meetings was probably appropriately done. The one time they got caught out with the Snowbird decision, they apologized and redid the decision. I thought it was appropriate that both Watson Island and Lot 444 was primarily discussed in closed meetings. I hope they are discussing the future of City West also. Watson Island and Lot 444 are business deals, confidentiality agreements may have been signed (not uncommon in the business world) and it is not prudent to public discuss a impending deal as the action itself could derail the deal.

I have to admit however, I really did laugh out loud when I started reading the posts about the process that unfolded during the appointments to various committees. As I pointed out in previous post, it is unlikely that these folks do not know how to use the phone or email. You do not really have to hold a formal closed meeting. In this day and age, meetings are more often used to formally confirm decisions. Surely you have all heard the saying… “There are actuall three meetings to every formal meeting. The first meeting is to decide what is going to be discussed and the decision that will be made; the second meeting is the formal meeting and at this one, the decision is formally made; and, the third meeting to decide what happens next”