Councillor Poll

@drummerboy
Ho-hum.
Shelly was totally blindsided. The 3 other candidates just repeated generick non answers. Wowerz.

George Baker, I forgot who that was. He wasn’t the only problem, but his smiles were unprofessional as was his question. Why was he even there? He’s a dummy. He – along with other people – killed the Daily.

Anyway, Sehlly has a chance as lone as people can see passt the biased anti-business questions.

Go Shelly

(but I still might vote for Jack).

I personally thought that Sheila, as I hope people are respectful enough to call her from here on in, and Blair came across as the most professional, the most informed, and the most comfortable.

I’m seriously surprised at how many people are dismissing Sheila. She advocates for balance. A strong focus on internal City affairs with an awareness of the external operating environment. She has the maturity and the experience, both professionally and in terms of life experience. Youthful energy is to be comended and it seems that many are voting for Lee based on the idea that he brings in a young, fresh, perspective. He’s probably a really nice guy, and some of his ideas may work. But isn’t there a committee he can sit on to test drive them? I personally would have a great deal of difficulty electing a Mayor whose main sources of experience to date are a University campus and a few trips abroad. Perhaps when he’s had time to develop his professional resume and can demonstrate specific experience managing large numbers of staff or budgets, or in comfortably navigating complex political environments, I would reconsider.

But, he’s just not there yet. A vote for youthful energy over experience would, in my view, be a critical mistake at this juncture in Prince Rupert’s history.

I’ve spoken to Gurvinder and I like what he has to say. He will get my vote. I’m also voting for Barry, Anna, and Joy.

[quote=“fasttalker”]I personally thought that Sheila, as I hope people are respectful enough to call her from here on in, and Blair came across as the most professional, the most informed, and the most comfortable.

I’m seriously surprised at how many people are dismissing Sheila. She advocates for balance. A strong focus on internal City affairs with an awareness of the external operating environment. She has the maturity and the experience, both professionally and in terms of life experience. Youthful energy is to be comended and it seems that many are voting for Lee based on the idea that he brings in a young, fresh, perspective. He’s probably a really nice guy, and some of his ideas may work. But isn’t there a committee he can sit on to test drive them? I personally would have a great deal of difficulty electing a Mayor whose main sources of experience to date are a University campus and a few trips abroad. Perhaps when he’s had time to develop his professional resume and can demonstrate specific experience managing large numbers of staff or budgets, or in comfortably navigating complex political environments, I would reconsider.

But, he’s just not there yet. A vote for youthful energy over experience would, in my view, be a critical mistake at this juncture in Prince Rupert’s history.[/quote]

Who says he’s not there yet? New ideas and approaches can’t hurt … Re: Sheila you must be new to town to question why people are dismissing her.

Yes, fasttalker must be new to town and new to htmf, since it’s his first post. Interestingly he/she has quite the insight for a newcomer.

[quote=“drummerboy”]

How has local media been trying to bury Gordon-Payne?

If you’re wondering why some people are strongly against her, though, this is one big reason:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20349&hilit=curnes[/quote]

Better yet, read the LRB ruling: < canlii.org/en/bc/bclrb/doc/2 … 75576.html >.

An employee claimed unauthorized overtime and was dismissed by Michael Curnes, who was then one of Sheila’s managers. The arbitrator ruled, and the board agreed, that there was just cause for discipline, but that the employee should have been suspended rather than dismissed. The employee was reinstated and Curnes was soon replaced.

And therefore, according to some, Sheila, as senior management, is ‘anti-union’ and trade unionists are or should be ‘strongly against her’. It all seems rather petty and shallow. I wonder how many of her detractors have actually read the cases.

I also wonder if Lee Brain, who has talked about moving away from leaders ‘who divide rather than unite’, goes along with Sheila being reduced to an anti-union caricature? I suspect that he doesn’t. He probably has more class than that; something by the way that the current Mayor sadly lacked when he talked about “young Lee Brain” < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … onate.html >.

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“drummerboy”]

How has local media been trying to bury Gordon-Payne?

If you’re wondering why some people are strongly against her, though, this is one big reason:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20349&hilit=curnes[/quote]

Better yet, read the LRB ruling: < canlii.org/en/bc/bclrb/doc/2 … 75576.html >.

An employee claimed unauthorized overtime and was dismissed by Michael Curnes, who was then one of Sheila’s managers. The arbitrator ruled, and the board agreed, that there was just cause for discipline, but that the employee should have been suspended rather than dismissed. The employee was reinstated and Curnes was soon replaced.

And therefore, according to some, Sheila, as senior management, is ‘anti-union’ and trade unionists are or should be ‘strongly against her’. It all seems rather petty and shallow. I wonder how many of her detractors have actually read the cases.

I also wonder if Lee Brain, who has talked about moving away from leaders ‘who divide rather than unite’, goes along with Sheila being reduced to an anti-union caricature? I suspect that he doesn’t. He probably has more class than that; something by the way that the current Mayor sadly lacked when he talked about “young Lee Brain” < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … onate.html >.[/quote]

I wish the above was all that happened far more serious labour events occurred the link is above far up the thread… the issue reflected on is small compared to the much larger issue far up the thread

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

I wish the above was all that happened far more serious labour events occurred the link is above far up the thread… the issue reflected on is small compared to the much larger issue far up the thread[/quote]

Then please be so kind as to provide a link to the source. I followed the hospital issues at the time because I’m interested in labour relations, having been involved in some of those kinds of disputes. I read the arbitrator’s decision and the LRB decision. What else is there?

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

I wish the above was all that happened far more serious labour events occurred the link is above far up the thread… the issue reflected on is small compared to the much larger issue far up the thread[/quote]

Then please be so kind as to provide a link to the source. I followed the hospital issues at the time because I’m interested in labour relations, having been involved in some of those kinds of disputes. I read the arbitrator’s decision and the LRB decision. What else is there?[/quote]

lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B233$2012.pdf

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Then please be so kind as to provide a link to the source. I followed the hospital issues at the time because I’m interested in labour relations, having been involved in some of those kinds of disputes. I read the arbitrator’s decision and the LRB decision. What else is there?

lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B233$2012.pdf[/quote]

I have read that decision as well and I do not see anything there that is relevant to the issues that the City of Prince Rupert faces.

[quote=“BTravenn”]
lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B233$2012.pdf

I have read that decision as well and I do not see anything there that is relevant to the issues that the City of Prince Rupert faces.[/quote]

It may not. But, just like I don’t see Lee’s “inexperience” as an issue and you don’t see the LRB ruling as an issue, others do.

You questioned why some people would not vote for Sheila based on one LRB ruling and somebody posted another LRB ruling. You can dismiss it if you wish, but others won’t. Just like the detractors of Lee, Tony, and Jack will not dismiss any of the perceived negatives of those candidates.

That’s just the nature of politics. Sometimes we vote for people because we like them. Sometimes we vote for people because we don’t like the other guy.

However, with four pretty good candidates (and that’s not saying that we have to like them all or will be happy with whomever happens to win), but with the four candidates we have, I honestly believe that most of us are voting FOR someone and the qualities they will bring to the job rather than choosing to vote for someone solely to keep the other three out.

And that goes for council as well. We only have nine to choose from, but all of them have qualities that will resonate with a wide range of voters.

At the end of the day, we could see a totally status quo council with Jack, five incumbents and a lone newcomer. At the other “extreme” we could have a new mayor with only three incumbents and three newcomers. I just imagined my fourth pick as mayor with a council that didn’t include my three favourites. I am certainly not going to be too happy, but I am not going to running scared either.

And that’s because no matter how happy or unhappy we are with the results, this is still a democracy. We do not have to shut up for the next four years. We can involve ourselves in our community and take a more active - proactive - role. One of the candidates, I think the “inexperienced” one, has made a promise to involve the community as much as possible. If he wins, I hope it is a promise that can be kept, but it will up to us as much as him for it to work.

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“drummerboy”]

How has local media been trying to bury Gordon-Payne?

If you’re wondering why some people are strongly against her, though, this is one big reason:
viewtopic.php?f=2&t=20349&hilit=curnes[/quote]

Better yet, read the LRB ruling: < canlii.org/en/bc/bclrb/doc/2 … 75576.html >.

An employee claimed unauthorized overtime and was dismissed by Michael Curnes, who was then one of Sheila’s managers. The arbitrator ruled, and the board agreed, that there was just cause for discipline, but that the employee should have been suspended rather than dismissed. The employee was reinstated and Curnes was soon replaced.
And therefore, according to some, Sheila, as senior management, is ‘anti-union’ and trade unionists are or should be ‘strongly against her’. It all seems rather petty and shallow. I wonder how many of her detractors have actually read the cases. [/quote]

Ah, the straw man. Nice try. That specific employee case is not why Sheila is considered anti-union. It is because, in the larger case ruled on Oct. 31, 2012 (lrb.bc.ca/decisions/B233$2012.pdf), which jamesbrown referenced, it was found that one of the main reasons that she and her management team decided to change the boiler system was to rid themselves of the IUOE (Int’l Union of Operating Engineers). The BCLRB found them to be guilty of "anti-union animus."
Now, her feelings towards unions is not a concern of mine, personally, but it may be to others; maybe those who work at the city. Why this is a concern to me, though, is all of the time and money this petty dispute cost us, the taxpayer, and the toxic work environment it has created at the hospital. These are fair and relevant concerns.

I don’t see any of this as being about good vs evil. I’m pretty sure that Lee Brain doesn’t see things in those terms either, or the others for that matter.

My thoughts particularly about the mayoral race have shifted back and forth. Mostly, I think that it’s time to vote for change. I would be happy with any one of the three alternatives to the status quo.

As for the council, there will be at least one new councillor, which is good, and hopefully they will be joined by a couple of others.

Bumping up to get more poll votes