Any thoughts on Mr. Brain’s platform?
I like the community notification idea, consistent information outlets like regular town halls and newsletters, strategic planning that involves the community (not just council getting together for one day and barking out their pet projects, as it is currently done), and the big emphasis on renewing and/or creating partnerships, particularly with First Nations, which the city has done little of.
3 things…
He mentions focusing on our jurisdiction and mandate yet also suggests engaging Regional First Nations partners in community initiatives. What does he mean by that? Are we going to focus on our jurisdiction but invite others into our business outside of their jurisdiction? I’d like to hear more about that point.
My main concern with him is his lack of experience during a very crucial time in our history, yet he says we need an energetic and experienced facilitator. As far as I can tell he’s the least experienced of the bunch.
He says it takes four people on council to make a decision, not one. I’m more inclined to say that it takes 7 or more to make a decision. You have a team of staff behind you and even though council needs four votes to pass a motion, even those in disagreement are part of the decision making process.
CBC Daybreak interviewed all four mayoralty candidates. An overview and links can be found on North Coast Review: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ction.html >.
There were some rather marked differences between the candidates, in style and what they talked about. I haven’t heard Sheila or Tony for a long while. They are both experienced managers and that is how they came across to me.
Among other things, Tony talked about how the council should not rely on ‘false hopes’. The City should manage its’ finances as they are rather than assuming that proposed projects will be going ahead.
Sheila mentioned the importance of attending to basics, eg having a swimming pool that has water in it. With reference to jurisdiction she talked about how the council should ensure that it is giving priority to issues that actually help the community. She also talked about the council having periodic ‘scorecards’ on its’ performance.
I don’t think that either Jack and Lee had good days.
Jack’s delivery was quite halting and staccato. In answer to a question (the audio is a bit hard to follow at times) about why the City boycotted the Pinnacle Pellet environmental assessment he said that the project was going ahead anyway, whether the City participated or not. But an EA is intended to address stakeholder concerns and set conditions, whether a project goes ahead or not. It was a strange response.
Concerning Watson Island, Jack said that the council had been working ‘diligently’ (a word he used repeatedly) to find a “credible entity” to take over the facility. Outfits like Petronas, BG Group and Imperial are certainly ‘credible’; they are well known with histories and established track records. Watson Island LNG has no history or track record at all that anyone is aware of. It’s hard to call an unknown entity ‘credible’.
Lee talked about staying within jurisdiction, but then spoke about community partnerships to develop sustainable energy, such as wind or geothermal, particularly if LNG does not go ahead. He said that $700K to $2 million a year could be generated. It sounds too much like a Citywest scheme to me. The City has tied up $30+ million in that investment, and it was supposed to pay $2 million a year in dividends. Citywest has repaid some interest-free debt, but has not paid a dividend in years.
Sustainable energy is a really good idea … for the private sector to pursue; not a City government that has trouble filling the swimming pool and issues boil water advisories.
Lee also talked about doing a third party audit, but I don’t see the point of that either. The City has third party audits, as required by the section 167(4) of the Community Charter. I don’t know where he’s coming from on that.
[quote=“BTravenn”]CBC Daybreak interviewed all four mayoralty candidates. An overview and links can be found on North Coast Review: < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … ction.html >.
There were some rather marked differences between the candidates, in style and what they talked about. I haven’t heard Sheila or Tony for a long while. They are both experienced managers and that is how they came across to me.
Among other things, Tony talked about how the council should not rely on ‘false hopes’. The City should manage its’ finances as they are rather than assuming that proposed projects will be going ahead.
Sheila mentioned the importance of attending to basics, eg having a swimming pool that has water in it. With reference to jurisdiction she talked about how the council should ensure that it is giving priority to issues that actually help the community. She also talked about the council having periodic ‘scorecards’ on its’ performance.
I don’t think that either Jack and Lee had good days.
Jack’s delivery was quite halting and staccato. In answer to a question (the audio is a bit hard to follow at times) about why the City boycotted the Pinnacle Pellet environmental assessment he said that the project was going ahead anyway, whether the City participated or not. But an EA is intended to address stakeholder concerns and set conditions, whether a project goes ahead or not. It was a strange …response.
Concerning Watson Island, Jack said that the council had been working ‘diligently’ (a word he used repeatedly) to find a “credible entity” to take over the facility. Outfits like Petronas, BG Group and Imperial are certainly ‘credible’; they are well known with histories and established track records. Watson Island LNG has no history or track record at all that anyone is aware of. It’s hard to call an unknown entity ‘credible’.
Lee talked about staying within jurisdiction, but then spoke about community partnerships to develop sustainable energy, such as wind or geothermal, particularly if LNG does not go ahead. He said that $700K to $2 million a year could be generated. It sounds too much like a Citywest scheme to me. The City has tied up $30+ million in that investment, and it was supposed to pay $2 million a year in dividends. Citywest has repaid some interest-free debt, but has not paid a dividend in years.
Sustainable energy is a really good idea … for the private sector to pursue; not a City government that has trouble filling the swimming pool and issues boil water advisories.
Lee also talked about doing a third party audit, but I don’t see the point of that either. The City has third party audits, as required by the section 167(4) of the Community Charter. I don’t know where he’s coming from on that.[/quote]
I agree with you on many points Lee loses me on developing sustainable energy we cannot afford another city west been there done it and we can’t afford it again… I am once again pondering my vote as too much time spent on that will take away from what really needs to be done…
I honestly found that Tony’s and Sheila’s platforms made the most sense. Tony’s mentioning of health care concerns was good. Sheila’s sticking to basics and making the city liveable plus the fact she already manages a budget larger than the size of the city’s budget. Jack’s platform I got a bit lost but I know that a great deal of work has been done by him over his several terms, and we have come a long way since the mill shut down.
I still wish Lee was running for Councillor under the direction of one of the 3 experienced, he would make a great Councillor, however it is a great experience to be running regardless of outcome. I will need to hear more before deciding. His connection with Jennifer Rice even though they are both new i still think is a very strong point plus he talks more about the rental housing crisis. He needs to slow down delivery what he is presenting as some points felt disjointed and unclear, but that comes with experience the other 3 are just more polished. It’s going to be interesting
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
He says it takes four people on council to make a decision, not one. I’m more inclined to say that it takes 7 or more to make a decision. You have a team of staff behind you and even though council needs four votes to pass a motion, even those in disagreement are part of the decision making process.[/quote]
Yes, it does take all seven to make a decision, not just a majority. As a democratically elected body the council should reflect diverse opinions and interests within a community. Debate and dissent are part of the decision-making process. Rules of procedure are there to ensure that meetings are orderly and productive.
I also disagree with Lee’s vision of making the council “cohesive” and an “effective team”. That’s the language of the workplace and of management seminars. An elected legislative body is not the same. Council members are elected politicians, not employees or subordinates.
There should be no expectation that they should set aside their personal views or what constituents have told them for the sake of being part of “the team” and maintaining cohesion.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
He says it takes four people on council to make a decision, not one. I’m more inclined to say that it takes 7 or more to make a decision. You have a team of staff behind you and even though council needs four votes to pass a motion, even those in disagreement are part of the decision making process.[/quote]
Yes, it does take all seven to make a decision, not just a majority. As a democratically elected body the council should reflect diverse opinions and interests within a community. Debate and dissent are part of the decision-making process. Rules of procedure are there to ensure that meetings are orderly and productive.
I also disagree with Lee’s vision of making the council “cohesive” and an “effective team”. That’s the language of the workplace and of management seminars. An elected legislative body is not the same. Council members are elected politicians, not employees or subordinates.
There should be no expectation that they should set aside their personal views or what constituents have told them for the sake of being part of “the team” and maintaining cohesion.[/quote]
I agree. Council needs to have diverse backgrounds and opinions but be able to come to some form of consensus, respectfully. The most effective and cohesive team that we should hope for is one that is a representative cross section of the community, debates varying ideas and viewpoints, but can still go have a beer together afterwards.
[quote=“BTravenn”]I also disagree with Lee’s vision of making the council “cohesive” and an “effective team”. That’s the language of the workplace and of management seminars. An elected legislative body is not the same. Council members are elected politicians, not employees or subordinates.
There should be no expectation that they should set aside their personal views or what constituents have told them for the sake of being part of “the team” and maintaining cohesion.[/quote]
Lee didn’t say anything about councillors discarding their personal views and what constituents have told them. Perhaps you’ve never been on a team, BTravenn, but those on one continue to be individuals, expressing their views and trying to get their teammates to see things their way, whether it’s in the workplace or a council.
All political bodies have individuals expressing their views and speaking for their constituents. Then this thing called democracy occurs and, if they’re team-oriented and have a common goal, such as the betterment of the community, they support the prevailing decision and move on. I’ve been on lots of sports teams or project groups and when a call, system, or plan was decided on that I disagreed with, I didn’t pout or bitch. I had my say, I moved on and supported the team. That’s how things get done.
Good on Lee for striving for this while most cynics, like yourself, toss it off as impossible in politics.
I have to agree with the sentiments in regards to Lee Brain. I listened to the Daybreak interviews and I have to agree…Mr. Brain came off contradictory and sounded inexperienced…I questioned whether he truly knew what he was talking about. I likely will not be voting for Mr. Brain. This city has no business involving itself in ventures like sustainable energry, we can barely get a telecommunications company (one that we should have never purchased in the first place) to PAY US BACK. I have absolutely no interest in watching this city go down another joint venture/private venture…the city needs to concentrate on running the city and leave sustainable energy projects to the private sector or the province…this is NOT the type of venture the city needs to be focusing its very preciously expensive resources. BIG no on that one! Also, as previously mentioned, the city ALREADY has a third-party audit done by Carlyle Shepherd, Mr. Brain is either confused on what C&S does during their audit of City financials or he needs to better explain himself, because he comes off looking quite foolish and inexperienced with that statement. I have not 100% written him off, and I will likely wait until the all-candidates forum to see him speak in person and perhaps clear up some of this confusion.
Simply put, Mr. Brain seems very eager and that is great to see (I truly wish he was running for council, I would feel more comfortable voting for him there than for mayor), but I worry he has way to many ideas in his head on what the city should be doing…we have massive issues hanging over this city that are going to take a few years to sort out…we are not in the position to be moving forward on other fronts until we can actually afford update our basic necessities like water pipes, sewers and recreational facilities. Our city has proven it’s incompetence on so many fronts, I really don’t know if it is ready to jump into a sustainable energy project. Also, just exactly what does the city need to engage the other FN villages about? That part of his platform reeks of pandering for FN votes to me…but I will let him explain that further. Either way, it is clear Mr. Brain is passionate and I like that…but I hope his message at the all-candidates forum is less muddled and more concise. He can’t please everyone, that is why he needs to better focus his platform.
Jack is on the defense and he should be. While I don’t think he has been a totally shitty mayor like some on here…I agree that some of his decisions have been quite dumb and his tactics even more so. I will not be voting for Jack this time.
My vote is likely going to Tony or Sheila…both are professionals, both have a TON of experience, both realize what the true priorities and intentions of the city should be (and what they should not be). Both have had missteps in their own personal business, but I am not going to hold those against them for mayor, I feel they have no bearing politically in this…I will wait and see where the business community/conservative vote is going before I decide.
Simply put, Mr. Brain seems very eager and that is great to see (I truly wish he was running for council, I would feel more comfortable voting for him there than for mayor), but I worry he has way to many ideas in his head on what the city should be doing…we have massive issues hanging over this city that are going to take a few years to sort out…we are not in the position to be moving forward on other fronts until we can actually afford update our basic necessities like water pipes, sewers and recreational facilities. Our city has proven it’s incompetence on so many fronts, I really don’t know if it is ready to jump into a sustainable energy project. Also, just exactly what does the city need to engage the other FN villages about? That part of his platform reeks of pandering for FN votes to me…but I will let him explain that further. Either way, it is clear Mr. Brain is passionate and I like that…but I hope his message at the all-candidates forum is less muddled and more concise. He can’t please everyone, that is why he needs to better focus his platform.
The above statement from a prev. poster is so true: while I like Lee “fresh approach” style and eagnerness I worry about many of the basic funtions of the city getting lost in the muddle.
I do like his views on the housing issues, as a councillor there would of been room to grow into the leader role and please Lee get over that sustainble enegry project thing it reaks waste of cash/ time to me…
One of the things that is important to me is how well will the mayor b3 able to work with the rest of council. We don’t need someone who dictates the councils agenda.
[quote=“drummerboy”]
… if they’re team-oriented and have a common goal, such as the betterment of the community, they support the prevailing decision and move on. I’ve been on lots of sports teams or project groups and when a call, system, or plan was decided on that I disagreed with, I didn’t pout or bitch. I had my say, I moved on and supported the team. That’s how things get done.
Good on Lee for striving for this while most cynics, like yourself, toss it off as impossible in politics.[/quote]
You don’t have to label me as a ‘cynic’ just because I have a different perspective. You asked what people think about your candidate’s platform and I gave you some answers.
I was initially supportive of Lee Brain’s candidacy for mayor, as previous posts here illustrate. That was probably influenced by my belief that after two terms it’s time to give someone else a chance to show what they can do as Mayor.
I’ve come to see, though, that those who have said that Lee is inexperienced and should have run for council are right.
An experienced candidate would not be calling for a third party audit; they would know that the City’s financials are audited and that there are detailed audit requirements in Part 6 of the Community Charter < bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC … n_d2e14293 >.
The proposal that the City should invest in an alternate energy business is nothing less than reckless. Any business that is supposed to generate up to $2 million a year in profits requires a major capital investment, in this case of money that the City cannot afford or does not have.
Ironically it’s not even in his written platform; but that in itself should raise questions about how well his platform has been thought through and whether voters are being offered some feel good lines that some want to hear.
I think that those that want change should consider Sheila Gordon-Payne or Tony Briglio. Neither are as strong on self-promotion; but they have both earned senior positions in the community, and they are both moderate, experienced and realistic about what can be accomplished in municipal government.
The Process section of Lee Brain’s platform says that as Mayor he will build “stronger community partnerships” by:
“Using innovative strategic planning methods to foster out-of-the-box thinking, such as the Syntegration Model or Open Space Technology.”
What is Syntegration?
It is a proprietary problem-solving method originally developed by the late Stafford Beer. Here is a page hosted by his daughter, the artist Vanilla Beer, that has several links to articles about Mr Beer: < vanillabeer.org/Stafford_Beer.htm >.
Syntegration is marketed by “Team Syntegrity International AG”, which is based in Switzerland. Here is a link to their web site (caution: the icosehedron may have a mesmerizing effect on some viewers) < syntegration.com/ >.
They have a branch in Toronto, under CEO David Komlos: < syntegritygroup.com/ >. Their online promotional material says: “Syntegration combines insights from geometry, neurology and cybernetics, with advanced mathematical models and social-technologies.” Syntegration is a proprietary consulting product.
Is Lee Brain an Associate of Syntegrity Group or otherwise associated with them, or qualified as a facilitator to deliver their services?
How much will Syntegration cost the City?
Are there legal consequences if Syntegration is implemented without involving Syntegrity Group? Syntegration is subject to copyright.
What happens if other members of council, staff or other stakeholders do not wish to be Syntegrated? Where will that leave “Re-Think Prince Rupert”?
[quote=“BTravenn”]The Process section of Lee Brain’s platform says that as Mayor he will build “stronger community partnerships” by:
“Using innovative strategic planning methods to foster out-of-the-box thinking, such as the Syntegration Model or Open Space Technology.”
What is Syntegration?
It is a proprietary problem-solving method originally developed by the late Stafford Beer. Here is a page hosted by his daughter, the artist Vanilla Beer, that has several links to articles about Mr Beer: < vanillabeer.org/Stafford_Beer.htm >.
Syntegration is marketed by “Team Syntegrity International AG”, which is based in Switzerland. Here is a link to their web site (caution: the icosehedron may have a mesmerizing effect on some viewers) < syntegration.com/ >.
They have a branch in Toronto, under CEO David Komlos: < syntegritygroup.com/ >. Their online promotional material says: “Syntegration combines insights from geometry, neurology and cybernetics, with advanced mathematical models and social-technologies.” Syntegration is a proprietary consulting product.
Is Lee Brain an Associate of Syntegrity Group or otherwise associated with them, or qualified as a facilitator to deliver their services?
How much will Syntegration cost the City?
Are there legal consequences if Syntegration is implemented without involving Syntegrity Group? Syntegration is subject to copyright.
What happens if other members of council, staff or other stakeholders do not wish to be Syntegrated? Where will that leave “Re-Think Prince Rupert”?[/quote]
I cant thank you enough for this information and other : my vote is moving away from Lee…
Another Citytel?
between that and wind power 'its double city west