Mayor Mussallem makes Social Media debut with election video


#1

Mayor Jack Mussallem debuts a Facebook page for his election campaign, a few pictures and what appears to be the main theme of the page his 11 minute election video, putting forward his case for re-election

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … -with.html


#2

I watched Jack’s FB video; well half of it anyway, I gave up. Wooden delivery, looking at a teleprompter of some kind rather than the viewer, an interview with no questions; all script, with familiar statements about what residents (apparently) want; doesn’t come across as confident. I don’t think that he’s going to make it.


#3

Unless the old vote gets him in I honestly think the Jack era is over but nothing would surprise me at all

Although he did poorly at the forum, I can understand a lot of the frustration as some things are just out of any mayor’s control .

he has worked hard for Rupert but change is long over due… “It’s time”


#4

I watched both Jacks and Blairs videos this morning and there is a considerable difference in delivery styles. But if you look past the flair, or lack of it, the messages are different. One is to stay the course, and gives a lot of detail. The other is flashy, is optically pleasing, but what does it really say other than its time for a change? I am voting for both of these candidates because although we need to stay the course, we also have an opportunity for a broader and fresher perspective on Council. If you are able to look past Jacks delivery, he gives detail. 11 minutes of talking directly to the electorate. He offers details that no one else can because of his experience. No body else that is running can offer what he does because he is already on the front lines and doing an admirable job of representing the best interests of Rupertites.


#5

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

I watched both Jacks and Blairs videos this morning and there is a considerable difference in delivery styles. But if you look past the flair, or lack of it, the messages are different. One is to stay the course, and gives a lot of detail. The other is flashy, is optically pleasing, but what does it really say other than its time for a change? I am voting for both of these candidates because although we need to stay the course, we also have an opportunity for a broader and fresher perspective on Council. If you are able to look past Jacks delivery, he gives detail. 11 minutes of talking directly to the electorate. He offers details that no one else can because of his experience. No body else that is running can offer what he does because he is already on the front lines and doing an admirable job of representing the best interests of Rupertites.[/quote]

I could not agree more.


#6

[quote=“jamesbrown”]Unless the old vote gets him in I honestly think the Jack era is over but nothing would surprise me at all

Although he did poorly at the forum, I can understand a lot of the frustration as some things are just out of any mayor’s control .

he has worked hard for Rupert but change is long over due… “It’s time”[/quote]

Jack has always performed poorly at the forums…he does not come off well in that type of setting and never has.

It is time for change for sure, but I feel that the “change” is needed on the councillor side, not mayor side…so that is where my “votes for change” are going.

At the end of the day, council is ultimately responsible, they are a group of 6 that control pretty much everything…if people want to lay blame, lay it at their feet…this is why I am voting for all the new people running.


#7

They key to this mayor election is going to come down to whether or not Lee can get the youth vote out (18-30), because this demographic will likely be heavily voting in his favour and whether or not Jack can keep enough of his older supporters from jumping to Sheila or Tony. Jack also needs to ensure his base is not apathetic, because it appears that Lee’s is very enthusiastic, ready and determined.


#8

Many of us middle agers have voted for Lee as well, but i could not agreee more… it aint over though till the fat lady sings, but here’s hoping for a youthful change, away from the old boy’s club… “it’s time” but i don’t discount the power of the "old’ vote whatever the outcome the people will decide., Definitely a 2 way Race with Sheila and Brigillo running for 3nd and 4th…


#9

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

Many of us middle agers have voted for Lee as well, but i could not agreee more… it aint over though till the fat lady sings, but here’s hoping for a youthful change, away from the old boy’s club… “it’s time” but i don’t discount the power of the "old’ vote whatever the outcome the people will decide., Definitely a 2 way Race with Sheila and Brigillo running for 3nd and 4th…[/quote]

I keep reading these metaphors referring to a need for change or the old boys club. Is that how we should refer to a lifelong civil servant whose family has been here for generations?? Part of the old boys club? Jack and his family have been a valuable part of this community for generations and now he should just be discarded as part of the “old boys club”? As Jack pointed out in his video, there is a $250 million infrastructure deficit that will require industrial development in order to ease the burden for the rest of us. $250 million!!! He’s been working hard at creating development opportunities with Council so that you and I are not alone in re-constructing this city. He touched on that with Lot 444. There will be public consultation and opportunities to have a voice on that. Now is NOT the time to re-think Prince Rupert. What exactly do we need to change? We’re on the cusp of everything that we’ve been waiting for in terms of development and help to re-build this city. I implore you all to think long and hard about this. Do you want to risk leaving this city in shambles for your children and grand children? Stay the course! Re-elect Jack Mussallem.

It’s time? It’s time for what? It’s time to get our shit together.


#10

Jack Mussallem will be judged by his record.

He’s talking about an infrastructure deficit where the numbers are even bigger than when he took office six years ago. What has been accomplished? And if there is a plan for the next term of office why was it not implemented over the past term?

His track record is littered with secret deals. There was a settlement with Sun Wave and Court filings mention that $3 million is to be paid to them from future sales proceeds, but nothing has been disclosed to the public. Is it under that deal that money will be spent to dismantle the pulp mill?

Jack Mussallem is on the ‘front lines’, yes, of a major court case against WatCo, where it’s becoming clear that the latter is willing to go the distance and the City could end up having to pay substantial damages. It is clear that WatCo wanted to buy Watson Island. Why didn’t the City sell it and move on? Suggestions that the reason is that Watco failed to get an approved remediation plan from the Province are not credible. A prospective purchaser is not even eligible to apply for approval. That was an excuse, not a reason.

Instead they opted for an exclusivity deal with WILNG. Who are they? There is no information about WILNG other than that it is a registered company. WILNG talks about building a ‘small LNG plant’. Where are the regulatory filings, to the NEB, CEAA and EAO, and public presentations? There aren’t any.

The WILNG deal expires on December 31, but it cannot be completed because a CPL has been registered against the property, which should have been anticipated. If that is not removed in two weeks the only conclusion that can be reached is that the WILNG deal, whatever it is, will have failed and that $500,000 in maintenance payments will have to be refunded. If the CPL is removed, the City still does not necessarily have a completed sale with a purchaser that is able to proceed and has a clear plan. The Mayor and council have taken a huge roll of the dice on that issue.

There is a deal with Imperial/Exxon to pay for some environmental investigations preliminary to completing a decision that is already in the works to re-zone land adjacent to the watershed for heavy industry. How much money is the City’s shadowy Legacy Corporation receiving from the energy companies? Like so much else “harm” would apparently result from revealing that information to the public, but is it “harm” and if so what is it, or is it just a preference for operating behind closed doors?

Now the standard response is that some things must be done in closed meetings. That is true, but not the real issue. Information has been trickling out, but not from the Mayor as the City’ primary spokesperson, but through filings in Court. A lot more is public than the current Mayor seems to think.

Change at the council level is no doubt needed. Mirau, Randhawa and Pedersen would all bring good qualifications and fresh perspectives. Most of all, though, there needs to be change at the top, whether that’s Lee Brain, Sheila Gordon-Payne or Tony Briglio.


#11

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Jack Mussallem will be judged by his record.

He’s talking about an infrastructure deficit where the numbers are even bigger than when he took office six years ago. What has been accomplished? And if there is a plan for the next term of office why was it not implemented over the past term?

His track record is littered with secret deals. There was a settlement with Sun Wave and Court filings mention that $3 million is to be paid to them from future sales proceeds, but nothing has been disclosed to the public. Is it under that deal that money will be spent to dismantle the pulp mill?

Jack Mussallem is on the ‘front lines’, yes, of a major court case against WatCo, where it’s becoming clear that the latter is willing to go the distance and the City could end up having to pay substantial damages. It is clear that WatCo wanted to buy Watson Island. Why didn’t the City sell it and move on? Suggestions that the reason is that Watco failed to get an approved remediation plan from the Province are not credible. A prospective purchaser is not even eligible to apply for approval. That was an excuse, not a reason.

Instead they opted for an exclusivity deal with WILNG. Who are they? There is no information about WILNG other than that it is a registered company. WILNG talks about building a ‘small LNG plant’. Where are the regulatory filings, to the NEB, CEAA and EAO, and public presentations? There aren’t any.

The WILNG deal expires on December 31, but it cannot be completed because a CPL has been registered against the property, which should have been anticipated. If that is not removed in two weeks the only conclusion that can be reached is that the WILNG deal, whatever it is, will have failed and that $500,000 in maintenance payments will have to be refunded. If the CPL is removed, the City still does not necessarily have a completed sale with a purchaser that is able to proceed and has a clear plan. The Mayor and council have taken a huge roll of the dice on that issue.

There is a deal with Imperial/Exxon to pay for some environmental investigations preliminary to completing a decision that is already in the works to re-zone land adjacent to the watershed for heavy industry. How much money is the City’s shadowy Legacy Corporation receiving from the energy companies? Like so much else “harm” would apparently result from revealing that information to the public, but is it “harm” and if so what is it, or is it just a preference for operating behind closed doors?

Now the standard response is that some things must be done in closed meetings. That is true, but not the real issue. Information has been trickling out, but not from the Mayor as the City’ primary spokesperson, but through filings in Court. A lot more is public than the current Mayor seems to think.

Change at the council level is no doubt needed. Mirau, Randhawa and Pedersen would all bring good qualifications and fresh perspectives. Most of all, though, there needs to be change at the top, whether that’s Lee Brain, Sheila Gordon-Payne or Tony Briglio.[/quote]

I am fine with judging him by his record. Many, you included, share concerns over secrecy and and things being done behind closed doors. Yet, community members (Garon and Ashley) who sat here like you and I only a few years ago with the same concerns, are now communicating that there’s a reason why it’s done that way. It’s too bad that you didn’t run yourself. Issues of contention such as watson island and lot 444 have not provided the details needed to pass judgement. Yet, many have decided that Jack should go over it. Too many assumptions, or inferences as you like to call them.

I’m going to make my own assumption now. That the building infrastructure deficit numbers are in part due to the City lobbying the province recently for support in preparing for growth and development.

timescolonist.com/opinion/co … -1.1431576


#12

There’s obvuously two very opposing thoughts on this and I suppose we will see which one wins out tomorrow night. Good luck to all candidates.


#13

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Jack Mussallem will be judged by his record.

He’s talking about an infrastructure deficit where the numbers are even bigger than when he took office six years ago. What has been accomplished? And if there is a plan for the next term of office why was it not implemented over the past term?

His track record is littered with secret deals. There was a settlement with Sun Wave and Court filings mention that $3 million is to be paid to them from future sales proceeds, but nothing has been disclosed to the public. Is it under that deal that money will be spent to dismantle the pulp mill?

Jack Mussallem is on the ‘front lines’, yes, of a major court case against WatCo, where it’s becoming clear that the latter is willing to go the distance and the City could end up having to pay substantial damages. It is clear that WatCo wanted to buy Watson Island. Why didn’t the City sell it and move on? Suggestions that the reason is that Watco failed to get an approved remediation plan from the Province are not credible. A prospective purchaser is not even eligible to apply for approval. That was an excuse, not a reason.

Instead they opted for an exclusivity deal with WILNG. Who are they? There is no information about WILNG other than that it is a registered company. WILNG talks about building a ‘small LNG plant’. Where are the regulatory filings, to the NEB, CEAA and EAO, and public presentations? There aren’t any.

The WILNG deal expires on December 31, but it cannot be completed because a CPL has been registered against the property, which should have been anticipated. If that is not removed in two weeks the only conclusion that can be reached is that the WILNG deal, whatever it is, will have failed and that $500,000 in maintenance payments will have to be refunded. If the CPL is removed, the City still does not necessarily have a completed sale with a purchaser that is able to proceed and has a clear plan. The Mayor and council have taken a huge roll of the dice on that issue.

There is a deal with Imperial/Exxon to pay for some environmental investigations preliminary to completing a decision that is already in the works to re-zone land adjacent to the watershed for heavy industry. How much money is the City’s shadowy Legacy Corporation receiving from the energy companies? Like so much else “harm” would apparently result from revealing that information to the public, but is it “harm” and if so what is it, or is it just a preference for operating behind closed doors?

Now the standard response is that some things must be done in closed meetings. That is true, but not the real issue. Information has been trickling out, but not from the Mayor as the City’ primary spokesperson, but through filings in Court. A lot more is public than the current Mayor seems to think.

Change at the council level is no doubt needed. Mirau, Randhawa and Pedersen would all bring good qualifications and fresh perspectives. Most of all, though, there needs to be change at the top, whether that’s Lee Brain, Sheila Gordon-Payne or Tony Briglio.[/quote]

I can guarantee you that if $$ has exchanged hands between the energy companies and Prince Rupert, or its subsidiary company, it would be FOI-able. That would be good to know as it would point out how much influence Imperial Oil has.

I suspect, however, that SGP or Tony won’t ever provide that kind of info. SGP announced she’d be kissing industry ass if she were elected mayor and Tony is not much different.

Brain might make that info available but one wonders if the town’s smitten with him, will taxpayers ask the tough questions right away.


#14

[quote=“jamesbrown”]

Many of us middle agers have voted for Lee as well, but i could not agreee more… it aint over though till the fat lady sings, but here’s hoping for a youthful change, away from the old boy’s club… “it’s time” but i don’t discount the power of the "old’ vote whatever the outcome the people will decide., Definitely a 2 way Race with Sheila and Brigillo running for 3nd and 4th…[/quote]

“The old vote” is not a bad thing. But they are often misunderstood as wise.

A cab driver told me the other day that he was voting for a mayor that will help provide job opportunities for young people. He was older, a long time labourer, and not with much money himself.

I asked him how he expected a mayor to provide jobs.

He said “we say to everyone and anyone to come here, no questions asked, just build please.”

But he couldn’t provide a thought out framework about how that might happen…or what a mayor would have to do to appease those who are concerned about environmental impacts… or how the city might plan for such activity… or how the city might change outside of young people getting jobs.

It was clear to me he hadn’t thought out what he wanted and how the city might achieve that. Which is to say, he was not wise simply because he was old.


#15

[quote=“Crazy Train”]

I am fine with judging him by his record. Many, you included, share concerns over secrecy and and things being done behind closed doors. Yet, community members (Garon and Ashley) who sat here like you and I only a few years ago with the same concerns, are now communicating that there’s a reason why it’s done that way. It’s too bad that you didn’t run yourself. Issues of contention such as watson island and lot 444 have not provided the details needed to pass judgement. Yet, many have decided that Jack should go over it. Too many assumptions, or inferences as you like to call them.

I’m going to make my own assumption now. That the building infrastructure deficit numbers are in part due to the City lobbying the province recently for support in preparing for growth and development.

timescolonist.com/opinion/co … -1.1431576[/quote]

Yes, I read the Times Colonist article a while ago. Ms Bomben’s presentation (curious that the Mayor had nothing to say to the MLAs) underscores the magnitude of the problem and how little has been accomplished over the past six years. The emphasis is on the caps on taxation of Port lands, which after the offsetting grant from the Province, costs the City about $1 million in net revenue. That’s important, but a lot more than that is needed to tackle a $279 million deficit.

Why the City has not supported the Northwest BC Resource Benefits Alliance, which is lobbying for a greater share of LNG revenue, is hard to understand. Being “skeptical” is not much of a response and is certainly not a display of leadership: < thenorthernview.com/news/280677852.html >.

Councillor Thorkelson commented that a problem with applying for federal and provincial grants is that the City lacks cash for matching grants. Jack ran on a platform in 2008 of selling City assets to generate cash. The big one of course is Citywest. Nothing worth talking about has been done there.

As for transparency, your comment about councillor Ashley does not square with what she has said:

[quote=“AnnaA”]
Whenever items appear on a closed meeting agenda that I feel should be discussed in an open meeting, I ask about why they have been placed on the closed meeting agenda. If good reasons are not provided then I move to have it put on the regular agenda. Sometimes this happens and sometimes it does not.

Despite this, however, I do believe that council needs to do a better job of communicating what we can from closed meetings to the public, as well as communicating what we are doing as a whole. This again, is a challenge since it takes time to change attitudes and perceptions about what should and shouldn’t be discussed in closed meetings … [/quote]

I don’t see councillor Garon as an advocate for greater transparency. When she recently left a meeting for “unspecified reasons” (as Northern View put it) when Lot 444 was up for discussion, she breached a duty of disclosure under the Community Community.


#16

[quote=“BTravenn”]

As for transparency, your comment about councillor Ashley does not square with what she has said:

You sir, are a spin doctor. All of this talk about the need for openness and transparency and you can’t even do it yourself. You are undoubtedly intelligent but, for what it’s worth, you are losing credibility with me. Here’s the rest of AnnaA’s statement. Nice try by the way.

[quote=“AnnaA”]

It is true that there have been many closed council meetings during this past term. I totally understand people being frustrated with this. Unfortunately, they have been necessary and fit into the category of topics that are supposed to be discussed in closed meetings. For example, issues, such as legal matters, have to be discussed in closed meetings. Since I have been on council, it is rare that a closed meeting has not had Watson Island, and the various court cases associated with it, as an agenda item. The increased economic interest in our area has also caused an increase in the need for closed meetings in this past term. Proponents/developers often want to present/discuss confidential, competitive matters that they do not want disclosed to their competitors in public meetings, and as such have the right to request to meet with council in a closed meeting. There have been a lot of these requests in the past term. There have also been items of confidentiality regarding personnel, and labour negotiations that we have had to discuss. Even things as simple as deciding upon award recipients or committee members, must be discussed in closed meetings due to privacy concerns. The system is far from perfect, but there are times when closed meetings are necessary and, unfortunately there have been a lot of those this past term.[/quote]


#17

Try not to get personal, attach labels and so on, okay. It’s pointless and in a way unbecoming, and not the first time. Whether I have credibility with you or anyone else is of no concern.

I simply express my point of view about the need for change. How you or others take that is your choice.

The reason why I did not quote the rest of councillor Ashley’s statement is because it’s uncontentious, common ground; there’s no issue there. Of course there are times when meetings have to be closed. I cannot recall anyone saying otherwise. What is clear and noteworthy is that she argues for greater transparency and is sometimes outvoted, she sees attitudes and perceptions as a problem and she feels that the Mayor and council could do a better job.

Of the incumbent councillors she is the only one that I hope is re-elected, largely because she has been an advocate for greater transparency. I see by the way that at the last meeting she asked that information about the Legacy Corporation be posted on the civic website and that’s been done.


#18

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Try not to get personal, attach labels and so on, okay. It’s pointless and in a way unbecoming, and not the first time. Whether I have credibility with you or anyone else is of no concern.

I simply express my point of view about the need for change. How you or others take that is your choice.

The reason why I did not quote the rest of councillor Ashley’s statement is because it’s uncontentious, common ground; there’s no issue there. Of course there are times when meetings have to be closed. I cannot recall anyone saying otherwise. What is clear and noteworthy is that she argues for greater transparency and is sometimes outvoted, she sees attitudes and perceptions as a problem and she feels that the Mayor and council could do a better job.

Of the incumbent councillors she is the only one that I hope is re-elected, largely because she has been an advocate for greater transparency. I see by the way that at the last meeting she asked that information about the Legacy Corporation be posted on the civic website and that’s been done.[/quote]

Even though it may come across as personal, it isn’t. That’s because I don’t know you or have any idea who you are. I’m just calling it like I see it.

Is it common ground? You are one who repeatedly calls for greater transparency. The only real information that we have is that these items are allowed to be discussed in closed meetings under the Charter. All are bound by the legalities around it and all are one of seven who come to a consensus to keep it closed. It’s not just one, it’s at least four, which makes me assume that there is good reason for it. It’s not Jacks or anyone else’s fault. It’s just the way it is. Let’s see how much changes with the new Council.

Honest question
Is it more important for you to know or for Council to do the right thing as they see it?


#19

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Jack Mussallem will be judged by his record.

He’s talking about an infrastructure deficit where the numbers are even bigger than when he took office six years ago. What has been accomplished? And if there is a plan for the next term of office why was it not implemented over the past term?

His track record is littered with secret deals. There was a settlement with Sun Wave and Court filings mention that $3 million is to be paid to them from future sales proceeds, but nothing has been disclosed to the public. Is it under that deal that money will be spent to dismantle the pulp mill?

Jack Mussallem is on the ‘front lines’, yes, of a major court case against WatCo, where it’s becoming clear that the latter is willing to go the distance and the City could end up having to pay substantial damages. It is clear that WatCo wanted to buy Watson Island. Why didn’t the City sell it and move on? Suggestions that the reason is that Watco failed to get an approved remediation plan from the Province are not credible. A prospective purchaser is not even eligible to apply for approval. That was an excuse, not a reason.

Instead they opted for an exclusivity deal with WILNG. Who are they? There is no information about WILNG other than that it is a registered company. WILNG talks about building a ‘small LNG plant’. Where are the regulatory filings, to the NEB, CEAA and EAO, and public presentations? There aren’t any.

The WILNG deal expires on December 31, but it cannot be completed because a CPL has been registered against the property, which should have been anticipated. If that is not removed in two weeks the only conclusion that can be reached is that the WILNG deal, whatever it is, will have failed and that $500,000 in maintenance payments will have to be refunded. If the CPL is removed, the City still does not necessarily have a completed sale with a purchaser that is able to proceed and has a clear plan. The Mayor and council have taken a huge roll of the dice on that issue.

There is a deal with Imperial/Exxon to pay for some environmental investigations preliminary to completing a decision that is already in the works to re-zone land adjacent to the watershed for heavy industry. How much money is the City’s shadowy Legacy Corporation receiving from the energy companies? Like so much else “harm” would apparently result from revealing that information to the public, but is it “harm” and if so what is it, or is it just a preference for operating behind closed doors?

Now the standard response is that some things must be done in closed meetings. That is true, but not the real issue. Information has been trickling out, but not from the Mayor as the City’ primary spokesperson, but through filings in Court. A lot more is public than the current Mayor seems to think.

Change at the council level is no doubt needed. Mirau, Randhawa and Pedersen would all bring good qualifications and fresh perspectives. Most of all, though, there needs to be change at the top, whether that’s Lee Brain, Sheila Gordon-Payne or Tony Briglio.[/quote]

Agree except for SGP as much I want Lee I could even handle Briglio but Sheila would just be more of the same… … but its a two race SGP and Briglio will take 3rd and 4th not sure which order

I have really enjoyed your statements during this election BTravenn


#20

I could not agree more. I voted for Lee on Wednesday.