I would hope now that regardless of her stance on the issues, she would have the class to step down as councillor for a by-election.
Think of how bad the optics are on this one:
“Thanks so much for electing me to represent the citizens of Prince Rupert. I’m going to go try getting a higher paying job representing people from outside of Prince Rupert while you guys continue to pay me. If I win, I’m sorry but we will need to part ways. But if I lose, all good! I’ll still be here to represent you guys!”
[quote=“dagojols”]I would hope now that regardless of her stance on the issues, she would have the class to step down as councillor for a by-election.
Think of how bad the optics are on this one:
[/quote]
That’s a little unfair. Everyone has the right to apply for whatever job they want, when they want to. If a better opportunity comes along why shouldn’t she apply for the job? That would be the same as saying to you that you should stay in your job because it will be inconvenient for your boss to find a replacement for you. This is Canada, people shift from job to job. I don’t see a problem with this.
it isn’t unfair , say you had a big project due for your boss and you are looking for a job elsewhere, would you give 100% to that project? especially if your boss knew you were looking elsewhere? wouldn’t it be fair for you to tell him to give it to someone else other than you? and if you couldn’t do your job under that situation shouldn’t you resign?
Prince Rupert has alot of prospective investments coming here, whether them actually come or not, which means all our councillors should give their all to it, if they can’t because of seeking a job elsewhere then resign so we can elect someone that can give their all.
[quote=“dagojols”]I would hope now that regardless of her stance on the issues, she would have the class to step down as councillor for a by-election.
Think of how bad the optics are on this one:
“Thanks so much for electing me to represent the citizens of Prince Rupert. I’m going to go try getting a higher paying job representing people from outside of Prince Rupert while you guys continue to pay me. If I win, I’m sorry but we will need to part ways. But if I lose, all good! I’ll still be here to represent you guys!”[/quote]
The councillors are not paid salaries; they’re paid according to the meetings they attend, and they hold an office not a ‘job’. Councillors don’t have to give up their day jobs or other commitments, whatever that may be, in order to be councillors. If Ms Rice continues to attend council meetings during the campaign she’ll be paid, if she doesn’t she won’t. Under section 110 of the Community Charter, though, she will be disqualified from her position as a councillor if she is absent for 60 consecutive days or 4 consecutive regularly scheduled council meetings, whichever is longer, unless she gets leave from the council.
[quote=“Jabber63”]actually she did state that over the radio last year, the clip was on CBC radio
her interview or statement was we shouldn’t be building LNG plants and she opposed them because we are exporting pollution,
basically the same thing enviromentalists are saying about coal exports[/quote]
Interesting. If that’s inconsistent with the NDP’s position on LNG she’ll have to recant. She’s not running as an independent or for the Greens.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Interesting. If that’s inconsistent with the NDP’s position on LNG she’ll have to recant. She’s not running as an independent or for the Greens.[/quote]
Perhaps. Nathan Cullen’s position that users should pay extra for going over their Internet caps is contrary to NDP policy (he has never reversed his position on this contentious issue).
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Interesting. If that’s inconsistent with the NDP’s position on LNG she’ll have to recant.[/quote]
She’s not running as an independent or for the Greens.
Perhaps. Nathan Cullen’s position that users should pay extra for going over their Internet caps is contrary to NDP policy (he has never reversed his position on this contentious issue).[/quote]
Yes, but on the even more contentious gun registry issue he had to reverse himself and vote with the party in the end. It all comes down to how much latitude the party is willing to give it’s sitting members.
LNG will be a major issue in the province and critical for the economic future of this place. It will indeed be interesting to learn more about the respective positions of the candidate and her party.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
LNG will be a major issue in the province and critical for the economic future of this place. It will indeed be interesting to learn more about the respective positions of the candidate and her party.[/quote]
like I said she stated it on CBC radio, as did other ppl I know and I even told some councilors about it when I heard it last year. I did post it to the forum about it but can’t find it anymore
I knew she had stated publicly she was against LNG development…I just could t remember where she had stated that, thanks for reminding me.
Oh and dwhite, my concern is not with needing to speak with her (I won’t be voting NDP anyways) it’s making sure people who are considering voting for her know her stance on LNG, which based on her radio interview, she does not support. I want people know that a vote for her would essentially be a vote against billions dollars of investment for our riding.
[quote=“bthedog”]I knew she had stated publicly she was against LNG development…I just could t remember where she had stated that, thanks for reminding me.
Oh and dwhite, my concern is not with needing to speak with her (I won’t be voting NDP anyways) it’s making sure people who are considering voting for her know her stance on LNG, which based on her radio interview, she does not support. I want people know that a vote for her would essentially be a vote against billions dollars of investment for our riding.[/quote]
Not a problem with your motives.
But there is still no evidence that Ms Rice said what she said. It would be nice to hear the interview. And there is still no evidence that she will continue to take that stance, especially if her party takes the opposite view. I will be curious to hear what she says in the future. And if the NDP does support LNG and IF Ms Rice were to take a contrary position, I don’t think she alone will stop billions of dollars of investment.
And by the way, is it strictly her views on LNG (whatever they are) that have you upset. When Jabber said that he had posted on here about Ms Rice’s position, I searched her name on HTMF and found nothing about her LNG position, but I did find this
[quote=“bthedog”]
Jennifer Rice and Rob Vallee has TOTALLY got my vote after tonight…these are two perfect examples of people we need on council and I am glad they are leading the local polls.[/quote]
I’d like to see us give Jen Rice a chance to clarify and explain her position on all the issues before we start to go for her jugular. I agree with Lee Brain, if you have concerns, talk to her. It’s very easy to make assumptions about what a person is thinking. And if talking to her isn’t your thing, wait to see what she says about the issues that concern you. Even if she did say she was against LNG (which seems not to be the case) she is allowed to change her mind.
From what I hear she is very open to talking to everyone about their concerns. And she’s only just begun this thing. Give her a chance, I figure.
[quote=“bthedog”]I knew she had stated publicly she was against LNG development…I just could t remember where she had stated that, thanks for reminding me.
Oh and dwhite, my concern is not with needing to speak with her (I won’t be voting NDP anyways) it’s making sure people who are considering voting for her know her stance on LNG, which based on her radio interview, she does not support. I want people know that a vote for her would essentially be a vote against billions dollars of investment for our riding.[/quote]
Not a problem with your motives.
But there is still no evidence that Ms Rice said what she said. It would be nice to hear the interview. And there is still no evidence that she will continue to take that stance, especially if her party takes the opposite view. I will be curious to hear what she says in the future. And if the NDP does support LNG and IF Ms Rice were to take a contrary position, I don’t think she alone will stop billions of dollars of investment.
And by the way, is it strictly her views on LNG (whatever they are) that have you upset. When Jabber said that he had posted on here about Ms Rice’s position, I searched her name on HTMF and found nothing about her LNG position, but I did find this
I agree, without the evidence, there really is nothing else to say, but the lack of this evidence doesn’t necessarily say she supports LNG either. As I said earlier, if I am wrong I will withdraw what I said, and until then I will wait for her to address the LNG issue publicly.
And yes I did vote for her for council, what does that have to do with my thoughts on her now? Its quite obvious that i no longer support her politically and do not agree with her extreme environmentalist views and some other issues she has thrown her support behind.
I know there is are issues with the plant’s proposed site, which may be what she is actually against if at all as opposed to the project altogether.
I’d suggest asking her to clarify her position rather than make accusations, true or not, based on a half remembered radio program. People tend to remember what they want to remember. I do it all the time according to some people…
It looks like the NDP candidate will have abundant opportunity to state a position on LNG, whether her own or her party’s or a bit of both, since the premier is dispatching community affairs minister Bill Bennett up here to discuss the “opportunities, benefits and challenges that are anticipated as a result of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) development” with elected leaders, community and business leaders, here and in Terrace and Kitimat. The minister’s marching orders would seem to give Ms Rice an opportunity to state her views both as a candidate and as a city councillor.
The article, which no doubt reflects closer attention to recordings of council deliberations than most of us have time for, indicates that to date, in that venue at least, only councillor Thorkelson has come close to expressing some clear thoughts on the proposed LNG plant on Lelu Island, with her prognosis being somewhat negative it appears.
I searched for the post too and couldn’t find don’t know why, but her position was not on the site it was developing LNG export, she stated she was against it because we shouldn’t export pollution, sort of like down in vancouver now where ppl are against coal export expansion because we are exporting pollution, nothing to do where the plant is going