Council Candidate websites

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
1

I went to CivicInfo BC, which is a municipal government information source, to check the candidate lists and find their web sites. Go here and enter Prince Rupert (City) < election2014.civicinfo.bc.ca/2014/index.asp >.

Five candidates have web sites:

As discussed previously, councillor candidate Blair Mirau has a well presented and informative site: < blairmirau.ca/ >. He’s a young, obviously very bright and energetic candidate, and I hope he does well at the polls.

I don’t know councillor candidate Ray Pedersen, but he certainly has an intriguing site, highlighting a platform of Port-related business opportunities and sustainable energy: < rupertray.org/ >. Hopefully more information about this candidate will be forthcoming.

As expected, Sheila Gordon-Payne has a presentable site up and running: < sheilagordonpayne.ca/ >.

I’ve heard that Tony Briglio will have a web site. Mayor Mussallem does not have a site, and probably won’t would be my bet.

Lee Brain appears to have changed his communications model since last time I checked his site. Now what I get is a sign-in page: < brainformayor.nationbuilder.com … ssions/new >.

If a viewer does not have a FB or twitter account, they can apparently provide their email address to get access. Why’s that? Email addresses are personal information and are protected by law in this Province. We can consent to giving people or organizations our address or not; it’s up to us.

I just don’t feel like giving Lee’s campaign organization my email address. What are they going to do with it, clutter up my Inbox? A little while ago I told the federal Liberals that I like Justin, but I wish that he wouldn’t send me so many emails.

So it looks like I won’t be checking out leebrain.com any more, like I was every week or so. For a candidate who is running on transparency (like all of them of course) and better communications, putting up a wall like that seems like an odd way of doing things.

That does not take the prize though. That goes to councillor Anna Ashley, who I’ve often expressed support for here, although my enthusiasm has waned since she started talking about using bylaws to ban oil refineries that have not even been proposed.

Click on the link and you end up at a password protected page: < annaashley.com >. I guess those who wish to learn more about her campaign will need an invite from the candidate herself. Now that is strange, even spooky, especially considering that she also ran on greater transparency and so on. Perhaps that is what happens after a few years of attending so many closed door meetings.

2

[quote=“BTravenn”]

That does not take the prize though. That goes to councillor Anna Ashley, who I’ve often expressed support for here, although my enthusiasm has waned since she started talking about using bylaws to ban oil refineries that have not even been proposed.

Click on the link and you end up at a password protected page: < annaashley.com >. I guess those who wish to learn more about her campaign will need an invite from the candidate herself. Now that is strange, even spooky, especially considering that she also ran on greater transparency and so on. Perhaps that is what happens after a few years of attending so many closed door meetings.[/quote]

I suspect that is a network/website glitch rather than a statement about her take on transparency, BTravenn. Thanks for bringing that to her attention.

3

[quote=“hitest”]

I suspect that is a network/website glitch rather than a statement about her take on transparency, BTravenn. [/quote]

I hope so.

4

Hi everyone,

I apologize for those of you who tried to go on my website and found it password protected. It was definitely not intentional and is supposed to available and accessible to everyone. I was in the process of revising my website from last election and had forgotten to take that feature off when I published the website. The website should be working now and if there any further glitches please let me know. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Again I apologize.

5

I sure hope, Ms Ashley, that you maintain your commitment to greater transparency. It’s been sadly lacking with this Mayor and council.

6

Tony Briglio now has his mayoralty campaign web site up and running: < votetonybriglioformayor.ca/index.html >.

7

Councillor Ashley’s campaign web site is now available for public view, after a technical glitch was identified yesterday and promptly fixed: < annaashley.com/ >.

She identifies two broad campaign issues. One is “hyper-economic activity”, which no doubt refers to the flurry of LNG proposals, none of which have been approved or have funding commitments from the proponents to date: < annaashley.com/hyper-economic-activity.html >. This strikes me as important, but more of a work-in-progress; there are so many unknowns.

The other issue is the Infrastructure Deficit, which now totals an estimated $250 million after years of neglect: < annaashley.com/infrastructure-deficit.html >.

This comment pretty much captures the problem: “Our water/sewer system is a 100 years old and is at the end of its useful life”.

When water/sewer systems reach that point life as citizens have come to know it in a community is pretty close to being over as well, as in load everything into a U-Haul and head down the highway to a place where safe water actually comes out of the tap. (Tony Briglio’s election slogan of “For a Healthy Community” may not be too far off the mark as a bottom line goal. He’s put infrastructure at the top of his list: < votetonybriglioformayor.ca/i … upert.html >.)

After a problem identification section Councillor Ashley has embedded a document listing several possible action items. References to “(staff has done this)” and “(staff is working on this)” suggest that the source is an internal City document. Apparently staff has compiled “a detailed Infrastructure assessment” and determined “priorities for infrastructure replacement”, but are still working on an “Asset management plan”.

This is the kind of information that the Mayor and council really should have presented and highlighted at a public meeting or forum and on the civic website sometime over the past three years to encourage public discussion before making some tough decisions.

The action items are all valid but stop short of recommending concrete actions to be implemented: For instance, it says:

“5. Find more funding by doing cost/benefit analysis of city assets {look at pros and cons of selling city assets (additional sources of revenue) and reducing liabilities (saving money)}
i. Get more on the tax roll- sell city property for development
ii. look at city assets and do cost/benefit analysis of what could be sold
and/or run differently to gain money and/or save money”

That section would be more meaningful if it said ‘look at the pros and cons of selling or privatizing Citywest’. The City has $30.7 million tied up in that investment.

The standard answer is that Citywest employs people. So do businesses that the City does not own. Working in the private sector is not the end of the world.

What’s the higher priority?

Protecting a business that will continue to employ people if it is run competitively without interest-free loans from the City? Or doing something about “Our water/sewer system is a 100 years old and is at the end of its useful life”?

8

Yes, I absolutely am still committed to open, and transparent government that is responsible and accountable to the citizens of Prince Rupert. Transparency is something that I strongly believe in and while I understand that some people may be skeptical of that, it is the truth. Whatever information I am allowed to disclose I do, however, when items are discussed in a closed meeting, unless there is a resolution to release that information to the public that passes, then I am unable to do so by law.

Whenever items appear on a closed meeting agenda that I feel should be discussed in an open meeting, I ask about why they have been placed on the closed meeting agenda. If good reasons are not provided then I move to have it put on the regular agenda. Sometimes this happens and sometimes it does not. These items fit the category of what “may be discussed” according to the community charter but could be discussed in an open meeting if it doesn’t harm the interests of the municipality.

It is true that there have been many closed council meetings during this past term. I totally understand people being frustrated with this. Unfortunately, they have been necessary and fit into the category of topics that are supposed to be discussed in closed meetings. For example, issues, such as legal matters, have to be discussed in closed meetings. Since I have been on council, it is rare that a closed meeting has not had Watson Island, and the various court cases associated with it, as an agenda item. The increased economic interest in our area has also caused an increase in the need for closed meetings in this past term. Proponents/developers often want to present/discuss confidential, competitive matters that they do not want disclosed to their competitors in public meetings, and as such have the right to request to meet with council in a closed meeting. There have been a lot of these requests in the past term. There have also been items of confidentiality regarding personnel, and labour negotiations that we have had to discuss. Even things as simple as deciding upon award recipients or committee members, must be discussed in closed meetings due to privacy concerns. The system is far from perfect, but there are times when closed meetings are necessary and, unfortunately there have been a lot of those this past term.

Despite this, however, I do believe that council needs to do a better job of communicating what we can from closed meetings to the public, as well as communicating what we are doing as a whole. This again, is a challenge since it takes time to change attitudes and perceptions about what should and shouldn’t be discussed in closed meetings, particularly when it comes to the items that “may” be included under the community charter but don’t necessarily have to be. In addition, getting things taken out of closed meetings and put into the open does require at least a majority vote and sometimes not everyone agrees. This makes it difficult when items fall into the “may” be discussed in closed meetings category under the Community Charter.

I, however, would welcome, and support any changes that can be made to increase the lines of communication between council and the people of Prince Rupert, as well as to limit those items discussed in closed meetings as much as possible. There needs to be a better way and I am committed to working towards, and implementing, any improvements we can make.

9

[quote=“AnnaA”]

Yes, I absolutely am still committed to open, and transparent government that is responsible and accountable to the citizens of Prince Rupert. Transparency is something that I strongly believe in and while I understand that some people may be skeptical of that, it is the truth. Whatever information I am allowed to disclose I do, however, when items are discussed in a closed meeting, unless there is a resolution to release that information to the public that passes, then I am unable to do so by law.

Whenever items appear on a closed meeting agenda that I feel should be discussed in an open meeting, I ask about why they have been placed on the closed meeting agenda. If good reasons are not provided then I move to have it put on the regular agenda. Sometimes this happens and sometimes it does not. These items fit the category of what “may be discussed” according to the community charter but could be discussed in an open meeting if it doesn’t harm the interests of the municipality.

It is true that there have been many closed council meetings during this past term. I totally understand people being frustrated with this. Unfortunately, they have been necessary and fit into the category of topics that are supposed to be discussed in closed meetings. For example, issues, such as legal matters, have to be discussed in closed meetings. Since I have been on council, it is rare that a closed meeting has not had Watson Island, and the various court cases associated with it, as an agenda item. The increased economic interest in our area has also caused an increase in the need for closed meetings in this past term. Proponents/developers often want to present/discuss confidential, competitive matters that they do not want disclosed to their competitors in public meetings, and as such have the right to request to meet with council in a closed meeting. There have been a lot of these requests in the past term. There have also been items of confidentiality regarding personnel, and labour negotiations that we have had to discuss. Even things as simple as deciding upon award recipients or committee members, must be discussed in closed meetings due to privacy concerns. The system is far from perfect, but there are times when closed meetings are necessary and, unfortunately there have been a lot of those this past term.

Despite this, however, I do believe that council needs to do a better job of communicating what we can from closed meetings to the public, as well as communicating what we are doing as a whole. This again, is a challenge since it takes time to change attitudes and perceptions about what should and shouldn’t be discussed in closed meetings, particularly when it comes to the items that “may” be included under the community charter but don’t necessarily have to be. In addition, getting things taken out of closed meetings and put into the open does require at least a majority vote and sometimes not everyone agrees. This makes it difficult when items fall into the “may” be discussed in closed meetings category under the Community Charter.

I, however, would welcome, and support any changes that can be made to increase the lines of communication between council and the people of Prince Rupert, as well as to limit those items discussed in closed meetings as much as possible. There needs to be a better way and I am committed to working towards, and implementing, any improvements we can make.[/quote]

Thank you for that Anna!

I have argued on here in the recent past that the closed meetings were likely necessary and that those, including yourself, who campaigned on the need for increased transparency, had probably been enlightened on the need for some of the city business to be conducted behind closed doors. By your post, I’ll assume that this was the case. It’s unfortunate that there is so much skepticism and mis-trust, but when you have a situation such as Rob Long openly asking if he should give the public answer when a question arose about the bylaw position, that only adds fuel to the fire.

May I suggest that the closed meeting agenda that is released include vague details such as the topics being discussed? Watson Island, employee issues, etc?

I will add that I believe that you are doing a terrific job and will be receiving my vote once again. Keep up the good work.

10

I appreciate your lengthy and considered response. I’m not skeptical about your commitment to transparency. It’s pretty much everyone else that I wonder about.

You rightly point our that matters discussed in closed meetings (leaving aside whether they should have been discussed there) can be released to the public if the council so decides.

The following, though, is consistent with what I, and probably some others, have suspected. Sometimes you, and perhaps one or two others councillors, are outvoted.

[quote=“AnnaA”]
Whenever items appear on a closed meeting agenda that I feel should be discussed in an open meeting, I ask about why they have been placed on the closed meeting agenda. If good reasons are not provided then I move to have it put on the regular agenda. Sometimes this happens and sometimes it does not.[/quote]

And sometimes old attitudes get in the way:

[quote=“AnnaA”]
Despite this, however, I do believe that council needs to do a better job of communicating what we can from closed meetings to the public, as well as communicating what we are doing as a whole. This again, is a challenge since it takes time to change attitudes and perceptions about what should and shouldn’t be discussed in closed meetings, particularly when it comes to the items that “may” be included under the community charter but don’t necessarily have to be. In addition, getting things taken out of closed meetings and put into the open does require at least a majority vote and sometimes not everyone agrees. This makes it difficult when items fall into the “may” be discussed in closed meetings category under the Community Charter.[/quote]

There are 15 topics under the Community Charter (s90) that “may” be discussed in closed meetings and only five that “must” be considered in closed meetings. Legal advice and likewise litigation or potential litigation fall under the “may” category.

There’s often good reason for discussing legal issues in closed meetings, but I have a suggestion in response to your comment about supporting

When litigation or a dispute is over, the Mayor and council should consider releasing information that was appropriately received and discussed in closed meetings.

For instance, Payments in Lieu of Taxes have been a serious issue between the City and the Port. The City took the issue to an independent Dispute Resolution Panel, convened under federal legislation, which gave a decision in the City’s favour. The Port is not bound by the decision, but it is required to consider it when deciding what PILTs it owes the City. To date over $4 million in ‘interim payments’ have been made to the City. Getting them to do that was perhaps this council’s finest accomplishment.

Why sit on it? The panel hearing is over and a decision has been rendered. Put it on the City’s web site with other financial information so it’s available to citizens who don’t lowball the City when it comes time to pay their taxes. The City’s interests would not be damaged by that kind of transparency.

11

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
I will add that I believe that you are doing a terrific job and will be receiving my vote once again. Keep up the good work.[/quote]

Agreed. Anna will get my vote as well. Thank you for your detailed, insightful response, Anna.

12

I think that it has been councillor Ashley who has been doing the enlightening about the need for greater transparency, rather than the other way around. I am not aware of anyone arguing that there should be no closed meetings; it’s been the frequency and sometimes the subject matter that has been the concern. She has pushed for greater transparency and remains committed to that.

To illustrate the problem, there was a closed meeting when some local donors offered to contribute towards the cost of the Snowbirds coming to town. There were privacy concerns and the Community Charter provides that donations “may” be discussed in a closed meeting: see paragraph (b) < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … #section90 >.

But then the council went one step further and decided in the closed meeting to contribute public funds. After Shaun Thomas wrote a very good editorial pointing out that they had exceeded their authority, the matter was brought to a public meeting and approved after some discussion.

Another example is consideration of civic awards; again there are privacy issues and the Community Charter provides that those issues may be discussed in closed meetings (see the same paragraph (b) mentioned above). On at least one occasion the council went further and passed an awards policy at the closed meeting. There is no authority or need to close a meeting to make a decision about an awards policy.

On your suggestion that the closed meeting agendas include ‘vague details’ such as Watson Island etc, councillor Ashley used the Notice of Motion procedure during her first term to raise that. The current Mayor spoke against and one or two councillors voted against, but the motion passed. Here’s is an example of a recent ‘special meeting’ agenda that advises that Watson Island would be discussed: < princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … 7-2014.pdf >.

Another change was that the City used to issue a “Notice of Closed Meeting”. To close a meeting a resolution to that effect must be passed in a public council meeting and the minutes of that decision are subject to approval at a later meeting, like any other minutes. That is now being done properly.

Some of these issues are technically challenging because there are authorities under the Community Charter to consider and also sometimes duties under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act. I think that councillor Ashley has developed a better appreciation of transparency issues than anyone else on council, the current Mayor included.

13

Perhaps actually telling the public after a closed door sessions that BTW we just had a closed door sessions and the reasons for it. I think it is the lack of explanation about why the closed door meeting happened in the first place that is building a level of distrust between voters and council.

If there is a closed door meeting because a developer is meeting with council to discuss confidential items…then make a note to mention that. Details do not have to be disclosed, but it lets voters of PR know why the closed door meeting happened.

14

[quote=“BTravenn”]

I think that it has been councillor Ashley who has been doing the enlightening about the need for greater transparency, rather than the other way around. I am not aware of anyone arguing that there should be no closed meetings; it’s been the frequency and sometimes the subject matter that has been the concern. She has pushed for greater transparency and remains committed to that. [/quote]

I’m not talking necessarily about the need for greater transparency, I’m talking about an increased understanding as to why there are so many closed meetings. I have argued this in the past and my comments were essentially in support of Ms Ashley and the rest of council. See for yourself.

"Others have campaigned with a promise of increased transparency yet the issue is still there. Maybe it’s because there is a rational explanation such as compliance with section 90 of the community charter. BTravenn mentioned that he has not seen as many closed meetings in the other northern communities. Yet, they have no Watson island saga, no ajaye working for them and no boundary expansion, for example, that Rupert has had to deal with. Some things need to be dealt with behind closed doors.

From AnnaA:

“Unfortunately, however, that has not happened. In fact, the steps they have
taken have only led me to come to the conclusion that no changes in terms of
openness, transparency and accountability will take place unless there is a
change with the people sitting around the council table. I have come to the realization that this type of change can also only occur if people have a choice at the ballot box.”

So what’s happened? Has she turned to the dark side or does she have a better understanding of why some issues are discussed behind closed doors? Hmmm…

City Contracts and Muncipal Election "

posting.php?mode=quote&f=3&p=200601

According to her post above, she has learned that there is a reason that items are discussed in closed meetings. People like Anna have campaigned on increased transparency only to learn that there is a good reason that things are done the way they are.

15

Lee’s platform is on the Internet now.

Lee Brain For Mayor

16

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
So what’s happened? Has she turned to the dark side or does she have a better understanding of why some issues are discussed behind closed doors?

According to her post above, she has learned that there is a reason that items are discussed in closed meetings. People like Anna have campaigned on increased transparency only to learn that there is a good reason that things are done the way they are.[/quote]

“Enlightened”, “turned to the dark side”, speculation about what Ms Ashley has “learned” or has a “better understanding of”. Her post says nothing about what she has learned or come to understand.

Things are not nearly so complicated. Nobody has denied that closed meetings are sometimes necessary. In fact the law says that some meetings “must” be closed. The real issue is how to improve transparency and ensure that the council is being as transparent as possible.

Councillor Ashley ran on a transparency platform and remains committed to greater transparency. She pushed through procedural changes to improve transparency that others opposed. She said that if she feels that an issue should be referred to a public meeting she makes a motion to that effect. Sometimes a majority supports her, sometimes not. Likewise when the council votes on whether to release information to the public. Her experience has been that “attitudes and perceptions” within the council can be a challenge.

Those are good reasons for supporting her re-election next month. That is the only conclusion that I draw from this discussion.

17

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
So what’s happened? Has she turned to the dark side or does she have a better understanding of why some issues are discussed behind closed doors?

According to her post above, she has learned that there is a reason that items are discussed in closed meetings. People like Anna have campaigned on increased transparency only to learn that there is a good reason that things are done the way they are.[/quote]

“Enlightened”, “turned to the dark side”, speculation about what Ms Ashley has “learned” or has a “better understanding of”. Her post says nothing about what she has learned or come to understand.

Things are not nearly so complicated. Nobody has denied that closed meetings are sometimes necessary. In fact the law says that some meetings “must” be closed. The real issue is how to improve transparency and ensure that the council is being as transparent as possible.

Councillor Ashley ran on a transparency platform and remains committed to greater transparency. She pushed through procedural changes to improve transparency that others opposed. She said that if she feels that an issue should be referred to a public meeting she makes a motion to that effect. Sometimes a majority supports her, sometimes not. Likewise when the council votes on whether to release information to the public. Her experience has been that “attitudes and perceptions” within the council can be a challenge.

Those are good reasons for supporting her re-election next month. That is the only conclusion that I draw from this discussion.[/quote]

Are you looking for an argument? My point was clear. You can talk about the need for transparency all you want, that’s not what I was discussing. There have been MANY complaints about closed meetings. You said it yourself that there were more here that in any other northern community. My argument was, and is, that there is a good reason for it. Ms Ashleys post supports my viewpoint.

You said, “Her post says nothing about what she has learned or come to understand.”

You’re right. That’s why I said to her, “By your post, I’ll assume that was the case.” You can take issue with the term “enlightened” if you wish but I’m sure it’s a fairly accurate use of the word. Based on her past and recent posts, before and after being elected, it’s fair to say by the information that has been provided that she, and probably others as well, have learned why closed meetings are closed meetings. I’ve argued it before and she confirmed my position.

Anythibg else Mr. Know-it-all?

18

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

Are you looking for an argument? …

Anythibg else Mr. Know-it-all?[/quote]

Look, what you and I think about these issues is of very little consequence, and perhaps none at all. Goodnight.

19

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Look, what you and I think about these issues is of very little consequence, and perhaps none at all. Goodnight.[/quote]

Agreed! My apologies for getting bent out of shape. Good night.