Lee Brain says Mayor failed to be honest

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
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?