Lee Brain says Mayor failed to be honest

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
11

Frankly I have been talking to a few people in the community and I think this kid has a lot of growing up to do.

I am fed up with Jack but at least we know what to expect. Parachuting to mayor without experience isnt good, he may indeed do well in time he should start as a Councillor so we can get a feel for how he is. We see it with Jennifer Rice too… Frankly I don’t trust the future of our town to either of them, but with Jennifer she has a party behind her and the NDP is not in leadership in BC. No Nah never wont be voting for Lee, I still hope another candidate comes forward.

12

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

This is another concern of mine. I’m all for responsible resource development but considering his affiliations and past positions on development, does Re-Think Rupert involve a drastic change towards environmental activism?[/quote]

Since Mr. Brain has provided NO reassurances to those that are worried about this…one can do nothing but speculate…and continue to be nervous to even think about voting for him.

Right now he solidly does not have my vote, not even a bit. He has less than 2 months to try to convince me.

13

[quote=“dafaceofanangel”]

You’re pleased with the work Jack and Council has done?? And you have the audacity to criticize Brain for having supported Rice? Whatever her failings, she has been nowhere near as incompetent and ineffective as this current council.[/quote]

I am not giving council and mayor a pass at all here…but WOW…what a wild statement that is. Jennifer Rice is the worst MLA this riding has seen in a LONG LONG time…that was on top of an absolute pitiful performance as a city councilor.

Our current crop of councilors and mayor may not be the best, but they have a LONG way down to go before they hit Jennifer Rice levels. I truly hope this city has a learned a LONG HARD lesson about why you don’t believe bullshit hype and vote for a hippie masked as a politician.

14

[quote=“bthedog”]

You’re pleased with the work Jack and Council has done?? And you have the audacity to criticize Brain for having supported Rice? Whatever her failings, she has been nowhere near as incompetent and ineffective as this current council.

I am not giving council and mayor a pass at all here…but WOW…what a wild statement that is. Jennifer Rice is the worst MLA this riding has seen in a LONG LONG time…that was on top of an absolute pitiful performance as a city councilor.

Our current crop of councilors and mayor may not be the best, but they have a LONG way down to go before they hit Jennifer Rice levels. I truly hope this city has a learned a LONG HARD lesson about why you don’t believe bullshit hype and vote for a hippie masked as a politician.[/quote]

So, bthedog, let’s see, this Council, “led” by Jack Mussallem, has:

  • Misled us by saying the acquisition of LOT 444 was to protect our water, only to announce AFTER the alternate approval process that it is for LNG development. That is, as Mr. Brain said, failing to be honest. Oh, and I’m wondering if Lax Kw’Alaams was consulted on this?
  • Refusing to be in the environmental assessment process re: Pinnacle, and then bitching about it later
  • Watson Island . . . well, this could fill a book, couldn’t it?
  • Citywest: they were surprised when they didn’t get the $2 mil dividend. What??
  • Allowed the union to add a budget item (undermining management) and didn’t give citizens details
  • Dropped the ball on PTI, which originally wanted to set up on Rupert property.
    I’m sure there is more that I can’t think of at the moment.
    And then there is, of course, Mr. Brain’s concern about a divided and uninformed public and why there has to be an in-camera meeting for EVERY session.
    Now, I am no fan of Ms. Rice either and, perhaps I am just not keeping an eye on her work as much as you have been so, please, list all of her screw-ups in her brief time as MLA, that eclipse council’s.
15

[quote=“drummerboy”]So, bthedog, let’s see, this Council, “led” by Jack Mussallem, has:

  • Misled us by saying the acquisition of LOT 444 was to protect our water, only to announce AFTER the alternate approval process that it is for LNG development. That is, as Mr. Brain said, failing to be honest. Oh, and I’m wondering if Lax Kw’Alaams was consulted on this?[/quote]

Let’s entertain a different idea of Lot 444 for a moment. Suppose Council was in fact acquiring Lot 444 in order to protect our water supply. Who is to say that the Imperial/Exxon LNG group was not looking to acquire LOT 444 from the province themselves? Perhaps the City acquired it in order to have control over how the land is developed so that the water system didn’t become compromised. So many knee jerk reactions, premature judgements and assumptions, and a considerable lack of critical thinking.

for.gov.bc.ca/Land_Tenures/t … index.html

criticalreading.com/critical_thinking.htm

16

Not a lot of critical thinking on the City’s part and they didn’t scoop Lot 444 before Imperial bought it from the Province.

Lot 444 was originally railway lands that the City acquired many years ago, by the 1940s anyway. The problem was that owning lands does not mean that the lands are within civic boundaries. All that the Province agreed to was to adjust the boundaries so that Lot 444, which the City already owned, is now within the City’s boundaries.

This council originally proposed a much larger boundary extension, but the consultations did not go well, so they pared back the proposal to include only Lot 444. No one was likely to object to City-owned land being included in their jurisdiction. Some of the news coverage was unclear about that and may have lead readers astray.

I would not go so far as to say that the Mayor was dishonest by saying that the boundary extension was needed to protect the watershed, then two weeks after the Province agreed it turned out to be for a possible LNG plant. The fine print of the boundary extension proposal mentioned industrial uses as a possibility.

The problem is more that the current Mayor is less than forthcoming with information. The idea of proactive disclosure seems to be unfamiliar to him.

17

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
This is another concern of mine. I’m all for responsible resource development but considering his affiliations and past positions on development, does Re-Think Rupert involve a drastic change towards environmental activism?[/quote]

I definitely get what you are saying and share the concern, but I would not say that electing Mr Brain would result in a “drastic change towards environmental activism”. The part I disagree with is “drastic change”. Rupert already has an environmental activist Mayor and council.

Lets looks at what a business journalist thinks.

Keith Shaeffer recently toured the area and wrote a fairly long article for the Financial Post and a shorter one for the Oil and Gas Investment Bulletin (the latter is discussed in another thread). North Coast Review gives an overview of both articles with links for those who wish to read in greater depth < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … pects.html >.

The NCR article notes: “Something that for the most part is probably fairly close to mark, though his perception of the “online resumes of councillors saying how they want to be guardians for the environment against industry” might cause a few council members to go “who us?””

Mr Shaeffer also describes the council as “heavily weighted to the political left” and adds “nobody sees development or LNG as a critical issue for the municipal elections coming this November”. He also contrasts the Rupert council with the “pro-development” Port Edward council.

The council’s handling of the Pinnacle Pellet environmental assessment is a good illustration. Rather than participate on an inter-governmental level, the council, by all appearances with the Mayor’s concurrence, boycotted the process. That is the sort of tactic that one expects from an environmental lobby group; not an elected government. They apparently wanted to make a statement rather than help formulate how the plant would be regulated and monitored, particularly to address the concerns of adjacent residents.

The election is not about Mr Brain as pro-environment candidate vs the current Mayor as a pro-industry candidate. It’s more about which would do a better of job of making a pro-environmental council more effective, particularly in its’ dealings with industry (LNG and otherwise). In a sense it’s about which would be a better process manager. I leave aside the possibility of a third mayoralty candidate who may have a different approach than either of them.

18

[quote=“BTravenn”]Not a lot of critical thinking on the City’s part and they didn’t scoop Lot 444 before Imperial bought it from the Province.

Lot 444 was originally railway lands that the City acquired many years ago, by the 1940s anyway. The problem was that owning lands does not mean that the lands are within civic boundaries. All that the Province agreed to was to adjust the boundaries so that Lot 444, which the City already owned, is now within the City’s boundaries.

This council originally proposed a much larger boundary extension, but the consultations did not go well, so they pared back the proposal to include only Lot 444. No one was likely to object to City-owned land being included in their jurisdiction. Some of the news coverage was unclear about that and may have lead readers astray.

I would not go so far as to say that the Mayor was dishonest by saying that the boundary extension was needed to protect the watershed, then two weeks after the Province agreed it turned out to be for a possible LNG plant. The fine print of the boundary extension proposal mentioned industrial uses as a possibility.

The problem is more that the current Mayor is less than forthcoming with information. The idea of proactive disclosure seems to be unfamiliar to him.[/quote]

Thank you for the historical background and insight. This is really the type of information that I’m interested in hearing. I prefer to rationalize and base an opinion on the best information available so this certainly makes my earlier suggestion irrelevant. Still, too often people jump to conclusions without factoring in other possibilities.

19

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
This is another concern of mine. I’m all for responsible resource development but considering his affiliations and past positions on development, does Re-Think Rupert involve a drastic change towards environmental activism?[/quote]

I definitely get what you are saying and share the concern, but I would not say that electing Mr Brain would result in a “drastic change towards environmental activism”. The part I disagree with is “drastic change”. Rupert already has an environmental activist Mayor and council.

Lets looks at what a business journalist thinks.

Keith Shaeffer recently toured the area and wrote a fairly long article for the Financial Post and a shorter one for the Oil and Gas Investment Bulletin (the latter is discussed in another thread). North Coast Review gives an overview of both articles with links for those who wish to read in greater depth < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … pects.html >.

The NCR article notes: “Something that for the most part is probably fairly close to mark, though his perception of the “online resumes of councillors saying how they want to be guardians for the environment against industry” might cause a few council members to go “who us?””

Mr Shaeffer also describes the council as “heavily weighted to the political left” and adds “nobody sees development or LNG as a critical issue for the municipal elections coming this November”. He also contrasts the Rupert council with the “pro-development” Port Edward council.

The council’s handling of the Pinnacle Pellet environmental assessment is a good illustration. Rather than participate on an inter-governmental level, the council, by all appearances with the Mayor’s concurrence, boycotted the process. That is the sort of tactic that one expects from an environmental lobby group; not an elected government. They apparently wanted to make a statement rather than help formulate how the plant would be regulated and monitored, particularly to address the concerns of adjacent residents.

The election is not about Mr Brain as pro-environment candidate vs the current Mayor as a pro-industry candidate. It’s more about which would do a better of job of making a pro-environmental council more effective, particularly in its’ dealings with industry (LNG and otherwise). In a sense it’s about which would be a better process manager. I leave aside the possibility of a third mayoralty candidate who may have a different approach than either of them.[/quote]

Point taken however either one is likely to also be working with a different Council, if ever so slight. Environmental activism is becoming increasingly prominent. You just have to look at Jen Rice getting the nod over a labour rep like Joanna Larson to realize that. Balance is still needed though because the bills somehow still need to be paid.

20

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

[quote=“BTravenn”]Not a lot of critical thinking on the City’s part and they didn’t scoop Lot 444 before Imperial bought it from the Province.

Lot 444 was originally railway lands that the City acquired many years ago, by the 1940s anyway. The problem was that owning lands does not mean that the lands are within civic boundaries. All that the Province agreed to was to adjust the boundaries so that Lot 444, which the City already owned, is now within the City’s boundaries.

This council originally proposed a much larger boundary extension, but the consultations did not go well, so they pared back the proposal to include only Lot 444. No one was likely to object to City-owned land being included in their jurisdiction. Some of the news coverage was unclear about that and may have lead readers astray.

I would not go so far as to say that the Mayor was dishonest by saying that the boundary extension was needed to protect the watershed, then two weeks after the Province agreed it turned out to be for a possible LNG plant. The fine print of the boundary extension proposal mentioned industrial uses as a possibility.

The problem is more that the current Mayor is less than forthcoming with information. The idea of proactive disclosure seems to be unfamiliar to him.[/quote]

Thank you for the historical background and insight. This is really the type of information that I’m interested in hearing. I prefer to rationalize and base an opinion on the best information available so this certainly makes my earlier suggestion irrelevant. Still, too often people jump to conclusions without factoring in other possibilities.[/quote]

I accept your apology.

21

[quote=“drummerboy”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
Thank you for the historical background and insight. This is really the type of information that I’m interested in hearing. I prefer to rationalize and base an opinion on the best information available so this certainly makes my earlier suggestion irrelevant. Still, too often people jump to conclusions without factoring in other possibilities.[/quote]

I accept your apology.[/quote]

Apology for this?

"drummerboy wrote:
So, bthedog, let’s see, this Council, “led” by Jack Mussallem, has:

  • Misled us by saying the acquisition of LOT 444 was to protect our water, only to announce AFTER the alternate approval process that it is for LNG development. That is, as Mr. Brain said, failing to be honest. Oh, and I’m wondering if Lax Kw’Alaams was consulted on this?"

As BTravenn has so eloquently pointed out, the mayor was not being dishonest.

See for yourself.

“Nearly half of the area proposed to be included in the City boundaries includes Prince Ruperts’ water system watershed and a City owned land (green color below). The rational for the boundary extension is to have increased influence over any development within the City water supply and to have increased influence over any future development for the lands which are quite close to Kaien Island across from Fern Passage and Morse Basin”

princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … oposal.pdf

It’s becoming increasingly clear that many of us only received, or chose to receive, part of the information provided.

22

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
As BTravenn has so eloquently pointed out, the mayor was not being dishonest.

See for yourself.

“Nearly half of the area proposed to be included in the City boundaries includes Prince Ruperts’ water system watershed and a City owned land (green color below). The rational for the boundary extension is to have increased influence over any development within the City water supply and to have increased influence over any future development for the lands which are quite close to Kaien Island across from Fern Passage and Morse Basin”

princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … oposal.pdf

It’s becoming increasingly clear that many of us only received, or chose to receive, part of the information provided.[/quote]

Yes, but the information was not provided in a readily accessible manner that promoted public information and dialogue. I’m familiar with that quote, which mentions unspecified “development”, because I researched the boundary extension proposal on the City’s web site.

While I think that in this instance Mr Brain’s allegation that the Mayor “failed to be honest” was an over-statement, the information provided and the way it was provided only just lets the Mayor off the hook. Boundary extension proposals must be disclosed to the public, but that is a good example of how information flow is kept to a minimum. It’s technical compliance.

The current Mayor and his council studiously avoid communicating with the public. Under the Community Community there is a list of issues that they “may” discuss in meetings that exclude the public: < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … #section90 >, but that discretion has been turned into a standard way of doing things.

This is the only council that I’ve come across in north-central BC that has what amount to regularly scheduled closed meetings. Very little information is released from those meetings.

Sometimes I wonder if the reason for that is that Mayor Mussallem is uncomfortable with public discussion because he is out of his depth on some issues. Another thought is that they keep disclosure to a minimum to avoid public criticism.

23

[quote=“BTravenn”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
As BTravenn has so eloquently pointed out, the mayor was not being dishonest.

See for yourself.

“Nearly half of the area proposed to be included in the City boundaries includes Prince Ruperts’ water system watershed and a City owned land (green color below). The rational for the boundary extension is to have increased influence over any development within the City water supply and to have increased influence over any future development for the lands which are quite close to Kaien Island across from Fern Passage and Morse Basin”

princerupert.ca/sites/defaul … oposal.pdf

It’s becoming increasingly clear that many of us only received, or chose to receive, part of the information provided.[/quote]

Yes, but the information was not provided in a readily accessible manner that promoted public information and dialogue. I’m familiar with that quote, which mentions unspecified “development”, because I researched the boundary extension proposal on the City’s web site.

While I think that in this instance Mr Brain’s allegation that the Mayor “failed to be honest” was an over-statement, the information provided and the way it was provided only just lets the Mayor off the hook. Boundary extension proposals must be disclosed to the public, but that is a good example of how information flow is kept to a minimum. It’s technical compliance.

The current Mayor and his council studiously avoid communicating with the public. Under the Community Community there is a list of issues that they “may” discuss in meetings that exclude the public: < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … #section90 >, but that discretion has been turned into a standard way of doing things.

This is the only council that I’ve come across in north-central BC that has what amount to regularly scheduled closed meetings. Very little information is released from those meetings.

Sometimes I wonder if the reason for that is that Mayor Mussallem is uncomfortable with public discussion because he is out of his depth on some issues. Another thought is that they keep disclosure to a minimum to avoid public criticism.[/quote]

What information wasn’t readily accessible? Do you mean that the City should have declared that Exxon/Imperial was looking at lot 444 prior to the area becoming part of municipal boundaries? The way that I see it is that the primary goal was to protect the water supply. The LNG project is very preliminary and it’s far from a foregone conclusion. But now that the city has lot 444 within its boundaries, discussion on how to utilize the land can take place. Indicating that any particular company was interested in that location before the province approved the boundary expansion would have been putting the cart before the horse. As you pointed out, references were made in regards to industrial use. Depending on how one looks at it, the optics of announcing a prospective LNG facility in the location being discussed could be questionable. I don’t see it as being dishonest or deceitful however. I see it as waiting until the City had the boundary issue sorted out before making an exciting announcement.

And as far as I can remember, the issue of closed door meetings was an issue when Herb Pond was in office so it’s unfair to make such statements about mussallem.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=11020&p=123041&hilit=Closed+meeting#p123041

24

This is true, but, how does that make it better that Jack also has a lot of closed door meetings? I recognize that there will on occasion be the need for closed door meetings. I like Lee’s idea of transparency and getting voters more involved in politics.

25

Public information about Imperial’s interest in developing Lot 444 did not have to await Provincial approval of the boundary extension. As the land owner the City has always had the right to develop the property (they logged part of it years ago). Management of City assets, wherever located, is subject to public scrutiny.

The only difference that the boundary extension has made is that now the City will have to comply with its’ own bylaws rather than SQCRD’s, and the City will collect the taxes if the land is sold or leased. The status of the boundary extension proposal had no bearing on the public nature of the issue.
EDIT: the proposed LNG plant and most of the taxable value would be on a barge, outside of the City’s tax jurisdiction, rather than on Lot 444.

The council has a discretion to exclude the public from a meeting in order to consider “(e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;” (s90(1)(e)). A lease or sale is a “disposition”.

They can talk about a proposed lease or sale in private and without making reports to the public, but note the caveat “if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality”.

How would public discussion of Imperial’s proposal have caused “harm” to the City’s interests? I doubt that the Mayor or anyone else on council could give a coherent answer to that question.

As you rightly point out Imperial’s proposal “is very preliminary and it’s far from a foregone conclusion”.

Yet the Mayor and council are proceeding as if its a done deal. They’ve set up a company to take ownership of the property. That’s to avoid the requirement to set up a reserve fund under section 188(2)(e) of the Community Charter < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … section188 >.

There is a bylaw in the works to specifically permit LNG assets on the property.

Have they conducted any kind of assessment of the impact that development would have on the City water supply area? They have said nothing about that. If it was Port property an Environmental Assessment would be mandatory.

Will the public have an opportunity to express any concerns about an LNG plant in that location? That’s being left for sometime down the road, when and how are unknown. For the present the Mayor and council are proceeding as if the project is going ahead. Public information and discussion do not appear to be priorities.

26

[quote=“hitest”]

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
And as far as I can remember, the issue of closed door meetings was an issue when Herb Pond was in office[/quote]

so it’s unfair to make such statements about mussallem.

This is true, but, how does that make it better that Jack also has a lot of closed door meetings? I recognize that there will on occasion be the need for closed door meetings. I like Lee’s idea of transparency and getting voters more involved in politics.[/quote]

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…

http://forum.hackingthemainframe.com/t/city-contracts-and-muncipal-election/6765/1

27

“How would public discussion of Imperial’s proposal have caused “harm” to the City’s interests? I doubt that the Mayor or anyone else on council could give a coherent answer to that question.”

How has waiting until after the boundary expansion harmed us? Why is it imperative that we know before considering, as you said, the City has always had the right to develop it? I truly fail to see the problem.

28

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

How has waiting until after the boundary expansion harmed us? Why is it imperative that we know before considering, as you said, the City has always had the right to develop it? I truly fail to see the problem.[/quote]

The council has a right to manage City assets, but only through public processes. If we don’t know what a government is doing because they exclude the public we don’t know if there is any harm. That is why the law requires that the council meet in public, subject to only a few exceptions.

With regard to Lot 444 or any other decision made in a closed meeting, it’s not up to citizens to demonstrate that there was harm because the public was excluded or information was withheld. The public can hardly make that argument when it ‘doesn’t know what it doesn’t know’. It’s up to the Mayor and council to justify the exercise of a discretion to exclude the public under the Community Charter.

Why this Mayor and council has such a problem with public decision-making and disclosure I have no idea. They even felt it was necessary to exclude the public to decide whether to spend a modest amount of money to bring the Snowboards to town, until Shaun Thomas pointed out in an editorial that they lacked the legal authority to make that decision in a closed meeting, and as result had to re-make the decision in public.

29

[quote=“Crazy Train”]
And as far as I can remember, the issue of closed door meetings was an issue when Herb Pond was in office so it’s unfair to make such statements about mussallem.[/quote]

So, by your reasoning, if the next mayor of Toronto is a foul-mouthed meth addict, alcoholic idiot, that’s okay because, by golly, so was his predecessor?