Rice should resign

General Forums Prince Rupert Forum
81

On her bio on the City of Prince Ruppert’s website readers are “welcomed to ‘Like’ her facebook page dedicated to discussing council issues.” I looked back to the beginning of the year before I stopped–no council issues to be found, but a lot of NDP stuff. Additionally, her Facebook page identifies her as “Jennifer is the NDP Candidate running in the May 14th 2013 Provincial election for the North Coast Constituency” with a link to her campaign’s website.

I think that’s enough to show how dedicated and effective she’s been as a councillor–a title most people would think important enough to be mentioned somewhere on her facebook page “dedicated to discussing council issues.” I can’t fault her for taking a step back from her duties with council to spend time on her campaign, it would be a unfair to the local NDPers counting on her if she didn’t do her best. However clearly she doesn’t have the time or, as evidenced by her facebook page, enthusiasm for her role that a sitting councillor should.

As to whether or not we should hold a byelection or wait it out, I too disagree with Clark, and that goes for all the MLA-elects serving their communities as Mayor or City Councillor. It might cost money, and it might be inconvenient, but if we can’t make the effort to facilitate (and participate in) our own democracy then maybe we don’t deserve it… or as someone suggested (BTravenn?) maybe we can skip the Independance Day parade in Ketchican and send an eCard instead this year to break even. (I think there’s on again next year anyways.)

82

[quote] drummerboy:

When quoting me be sure to use all the adjectives. I said “somewhat clear”. But I will go out on a limb and say that it is even clearer than somewhat. [/quote]

Uh, okay, so, since you are willing to say it is clearer than somewhat, why bother even bringing up the marginal misquote?

And I am not personally attacking Ms. Rice. I simply believe she has done very little as a city councilor beyond speak to environmental issues - which are important, but there is more going on in this community that she needs to at least chime in on once in awhile. This city is facing tough times, with tough decisions to be made by council, and we need more than a councilor with one-and-a-half-feet in Victoria.

83

[quote=“drummerboy”]

[quote] drummerboy:

When quoting me be sure to use all the adjectives. I said “somewhat clear”. But I will go out on a limb and say that it is even clearer than somewhat. [/quote]

Uh, okay, so, since you are willing to say it is clearer than somewhat, why bother even bringing up the marginal misquote?

And I am not personally attacking Ms. Rice. I simply believe she has done very little as a city councilor beyond speak to environmental issues - which are important, but there is more going on in this community that she needs to at least chime in on once in awhile. This city is facing tough times, with tough decisions to be made by council, and we need more than a councilor with one-and-a-half-feet in Victoria.[/quote]

First of all I brought up the (not so) marginal misquote because I wanted it to be clear about what I actually said. And I still haven’t said that she has been completely clear. I was only pointing out that she has been more clear about her intentions than people were letting on.

On to more important things…

I agree with you 100%. I don’t think we need an MLA in Victoria trying to do a city council job at the same time. I agree with Shaun Thomas that there is the potential for conflict and agree with eccentric that she is unlikely to have the time to do both jobs adequately. And I won’t even dispute your assessment of Jennifer’s performance on council. You are free to have that opinion and can knock her all you want.

My problem - and really it is my problem - is that the discussion on this topic should be about what Jennifer should or shouldn’t do based on the situation (a councilor becoming an MLA) and not about the person involved. As I noted in my response to BTravenn, I apologize if I read too much into your post.

Right now, I think I can sum up the discussion this way. On this forum, a vast majority (maybe unanimous) believe an MLA-elect should step aside from city council.

The next question is whether a councilor takes a leave of absence until the new year negating a byelection or whether she resigns in the near future forcing a byelection.

Right now, on this forum at least, the consensus is that we should have a byelection. I refer to eccentric’s reasoning. I really haven’t heard anybody say otherwise. And only to be the devil’s advocate (because I support a byelection; in fact I hope they can include other issues), a byelection will cost money and as has been pointed out, council can survive without all six councilors so why the urgency.

(And as a side note, isn’t it ironic that Christy Clark is telling MLA-elects to resign later to save on the cost of a byelection when she herself will be forcing one in the near future?)

84

[quote=“eccentric”]

As to whether or not we should hold a byelection or wait it out … It might cost money, and it might be inconvenient, but if we can’t make the effort to facilitate (and participate in) our own democracy then maybe we don’t deserve it… [/quote]

The cost of a by-election is a bogus issue. It doesn’t cost that much, even for a City like this that is not in great financial shape.

DWhite is probably correct in saying that Councillor/MLA-elect Rice knows that she should resign to focus on her MLA role and to avoid conflicts of interest. Whether she will be missed on council or is still interested in being on council, is beside the point. She probably will resign.

What seems to be holding her back is concern about the cost of a by-election. That seems to be the basis for her concern about the decision having “the least impact on the community”.

If she resigns before January 2, 2014 the Community Charter requires that there be a by-election and that the municipality pay for it (there is no provision for donations; that’s probably against the law). If she resigns on or after that date it’s up to the council to decide whether to have a by-election.

This is not the first time that the cost of democracy has been raised as a concern. The Mayor expressed a preference a while back for avoiding the cost of a referendum on police/fire department facilities, and one or two on council echoed those thoughts.

I wonder if the Mayor or anyone on council, or Ms Rice for that matter, actually know how much a by-election would cost?

At the June 6, 2009 council meeting CFO Dan Rodin presented a report to council saying that the cost of ballot counters and ballots is $4,845. I don’t know whether that included their time registering voters, but we’re not talking about a lot of money.

To put it in perspective, the City charges $1,526 in taxes on a residence worth $168,700. < northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … -mail.html >. A total of $14.1 million is collected in property taxes, and that represents 41% of the City’s operational revenue (it also gets money from grants in lieu etc). Quick math: if a taxpayer pays about $1,526 in taxes, the cost of ballot counters and ballots for an election, by-election or a referendum is about 21 cents; maybe a few cents more to staff the registration desk.

In the big scheme of things, democracy is not a huge financial burden.

Councillor/MLA-elect should not be concerned about deferring her resignation (which is probably inevitable) until January 2014 so that the council can avoid a by-election if they feel the cost would be burdensome. Staying on council until that magic date arrives also costs the City in honouraria, so there really would not be a savings anyway.

Under the Community Charter a council member can resign anytime they want for any reason they want. It’s as simple as that. I think that even voters who did not support Ms Rice during the last election would prefer that she focus on representing us in Victoria and doing the best that she can when she’s down there, without being distracted by council business.

85

I just wanted to say that I do not believe that Rice alone has been ineffective. This entire council is one of the worst ever. They are our 74-75 Washington Capitals.

86

Hey now, that’s going way too far.

87

I emailed city hall asking for the approximate cost of a by-election. I was told it would be in the broad range of $15,000-25,000. All the legal requirements are similar to a regular election. There might be some savings because of the fewer ballots and less counting. The last full civic election cost about $30,000.

I was able to get the following information from links provided by North Coast Review

northcoastreview.blogspot.ca/201 … s-all.html

In Penticton, the cost of a by-election is estimated at $35,000. The mayor who is the MLA-elect said he would pay for it.

The mayor of Pitt Meadows would like the councilor who was elected MLA to stay on as it would cost the city about $15,000 for a by-election.

In Surrey, the councilor is worried about stepping down because the by-election there would cost $800,000.

Most of the councilors indicated that if they did stay on they would not be taking any salary from the city thus saving the city further monies.

Hope this helps.

88

That’s a pretty “broad range”. It’s interesting that Pitt Meadows with 40% more population (17,736 compared to Rupert’s 12,508 in 2011) can run a by-election for the same as the low end of the range and 40% less than the high end estimate.

Perhaps city hall is not really too sure what a by-election costs, or maybe this is another area where the City should be looking for ways of doing things smarter.

89

[quote=“BTravenn”]

That’s a pretty “broad range”. It’s interesting that Pitt Meadows with 40% more population (17,736 compared to Rupert’s 12,508 in 2011) can run a by-election for the same as the low end of the range and 40% less than the high end estimate.

Perhaps city hall is not really too sure what a by-election costs, or maybe this is another area where the City should be looking for ways of doing things smarter.[/quote]

I tried to get some information regarding the topic so that we could discuss it with as much background information as possible. I am not sure if we want to discuss the city’s ability to run a frugal by-election but here goes.

When I phoned city hall to thank them for the quick response to my email, I got a sense of a couple of things. The by-election is still an election. Just because it is a single vote for one councilor rather than multiple candidates and just because there are no ballots for mayor or school board, all the things that are required of an election have to take place. And whether a town has 5000, 10000 or 25000 people, we still need a returning officer, ballot boxes, a place to vote, advertising etc that will cost the same wherever it takes place.

And to be fair, I didn’t ask for a detailed accounting. I asked for a broad range. That was the best estimate. If people want something more detailed or are upset that we can’t do the same as Pitt Meadows or Penticton or Surrey, then I apologize for not being more demanding.

All I am trying to do here is point out that having Jennifer resign immediately has a cost. Some people are saying that democracy is worth the cost. As can be seen from other communities the issue isn’t cut and dried.

Some of the councilors down south are considering staying on until the new year to save their community the cost of a by-election AND they are not going to accept their salary from the city. If Jennifer took a leave of absence from council then we would save the $15-20,000 a councilor would be paid until the next election. If we accept the minimum cost of $15,000 for a by-election, the savings to the city might be in the $30-40,000 range.

Of course there is a down side. The city would be without a councilor for a year and a half. I had a chance to talk to a school board member yesterday and she mentioned the importance of having the 7th person to avoid ties which result in the defeat of motions. Council members also meet with the public and serve on committees. With one less councilor, more work would be required of the people still left which isn’t fair to them.

What is the cost of democracy when dealing with a by-election for one councilor? How much are people willing to pay? For many of us here, voting is an important, civic responsibility, but remember, sadly, fewer than half the people vote in civic elections and that is with a full slate of candidates. I would hope that should a by-election take place that we use the opportunity for votes on other subjects as well, even if they are just to get a sense of priorities that people in town have and hopefully get more people involved in the political process.

90

[quote=“DWhite”]

I tried to get some information regarding the topic so that we could discuss it with as much background information as possible. I am not sure if we want to discuss the city’s ability to run a frugal by-election but here goes.

When I phoned city hall to thank them for the quick response to my email, I got a sense of a couple of things. The by-election is still an election. Just because it is a single vote for one councilor rather than multiple candidates and just because there are no ballots for mayor or school board, all the things that are required of an election have to take place. And whether a town has 5000, 10000 or 25000 people, we still need a returning officer, ballot boxes, a place to vote, advertising etc that will cost the same wherever it takes place.

And to be fair, I didn’t ask for a detailed accounting. I asked for a broad range. That was the best estimate. If people want something more detailed or are upset that we can’t do the same as Pitt Meadows or Penticton or Surrey, then I apologize for not being more demanding.

All I am trying to do here is point out that having Jennifer resign immediately has a cost. Some people are saying that democracy is worth the cost. As can be seen from other communities the issue isn’t cut and dried.

Some of the councilors down south are considering staying on until the new year to save their community the cost of a by-election AND they are not going to accept their salary from the city. If Jennifer took a leave of absence from council then we would save the $15-20,000 a councilor would be paid until the next election. If we accept the minimum cost of $15,000 for a by-election, the savings to the city might be in the $30-40,000 range.

Of course there is a down side. The city would be without a councilor for a year and a half. I had a chance to talk to a school board member yesterday and she mentioned the importance of having the 7th person to avoid ties which result in the defeat of motions. Council members also meet with the public and serve on committees. With one less councilor, more work would be required of the people still left which isn’t fair to them.

What is the cost of democracy when dealing with a by-election for one councilor? How much are people willing to pay? For many of us here, voting is an important, civic responsibility, but remember, sadly, fewer than half the people vote in civic elections and that is with a full slate of candidates. I would hope that should a by-election take place that we use the opportunity for votes on other subjects as well, even if they are just to get a sense of priorities that people in town have and hopefully get more people involved in the political process.[/quote]

Yes, democracy does have a cost. Maybe they’ll have to hold off on purchasing some of the $40,000 in new equipment for the Golf Course until next year.

91

I have no faith in our Mayor or any on our council, so I do not have much faith that if we get 1 new member of council much will change.
Short of BTravenn running I really could care less.

92

[quote=“chookie”]
Short of BTravenn running I really could care less.[/quote]

BTravenn will get my vote.

93

[quote=“hitest”]

[quote=“chookie”]
Short of BTravenn running I really could care less.[/quote]

BTravenn will get my vote.[/quote]

I doubt you’ll see “BTravenn” on the ballot…:smile:

94

[quote=“DWhite”]The next question is whether a councilor takes a leave of absence until the new year negating a byelection or whether she resigns in the near future forcing a byelection…

(And as a side note, isn’t it ironic that Christy Clark is telling MLA-elects to resign later to save on the cost of a byelection when she herself will be forcing one in the near future?)[/quote]

A councillor asking for and the council granting a leave of absence so that the City can avoid the cost of a by-election seems like a neat and tidy solution. But is it ethical?

Leave of absence means that the person intends to come back. It is typically used when a person is incapacitiated for some reason, but expects to be able to resume their duties at a later date. If they don’t intend to come back they resign.

Christy Clark is a very shrewd and capable politician who in the last election surprised a lot of people, including some in her own party who had the knives out for her. She will do what she has to do and say what she has to say, right down to talking about purple underwear (I forget what point she was trying to make in that interview, but then maybe that was the point).

There is an expectation that public officials will be honest and act in good faith. That’s part of the public trust and one reason why they take an oath of office.

Would Councillor/MLA-elect Rice be so ethically shallow that she would request a leave of absence when she has no intention of resuming her duties at a later date?

95

K, I’ll play devils advocate and I haven’t read more than the last page of this thread…
How can you be sure she has no intention of returning?
Has she tried being an MLA?
Perhaps the constant travel will be too much?
Perhaps the pressure will be too much?
Perhaps she changes her mind and wants her old life back?
Improbable, yes.
Impossible, no.
So with a leave she has a potential fall back and we save some money.
And why would anyone bring up ethics in a political thread???
Compromising them starts the second they decide to run; it’s part of the job description.

96

[quote=“BTravenn”]

A councillor asking for and the council granting a leave of absence so that the City can avoid the cost of a by-election seems like a neat and tidy solution. But is it ethical?

Leave of absence means that the person intends to come back. It is typically used when a person is incapacitiated for some reason, but expects to be able to resume their duties at a later date. If they don’t intend to come back they resign.

There is an expectation that public officials will be honest and act in good faith. That’s part of the public trust and one reason why they take an oath of office.

Would Councillor/MLA-elect Rice be so ethically shallow that she would request a leave of absence when she has no intention of resuming her duties at a later date?[/quote]

I am not sure if your questions are rhetorical, but because I find this discussion interesting in a weird sort of way, I will respond.

Is ethics the correct word here? I always thought that unethical behaviour dealt with deception resulting in some sort of personal gain but I am sure the definition can be expanded.

Adrian Dix backdating a memo was unethical.
Christy Clark’s office staff using government time for partisan purposes was unethical.
Mike Duffy and other senators billing inappropriately is unethical behaviour.

The eight or nine councilors who are in the same position as Jennifer could decide to take a leave of absence with the intent of resigning their position in January when a by-election would no longer be required. None of them would be using any kind of deception. Everybody would be clear as to their intent and the reasons behind the decision. They would be honest and transparent.

None of them would be gaining anything by their decision. They would not be collecting a pay cheque or anything that would be of benefit to them personally.

Any of the eight or nine councilors can choose to stay on council until January with the intent of resigning at that point. Some of them have openly mulled that option. And they could donate all of their salary back to the city. I prefer the leave option as being more ethical because in some cases - our riding for one - there is the potential for conflict by holding two positions.

So I don’t buy the ethical argument and I also don’t buy the democracy argument. I don’t think democracy would be diminished if we chose not to elect a single councilor for a year and a half. We already have an artificial line in the sand when we say that it isn’t mandatory to have a by-election anyway.

I have now talked with two councilors and a school trustee. None of the conversations were longer than a minute, so in depth discussion did not take place. My sense from them is the importance of the seventh member to ensure that business can proceed without tie votes. That makes sense. I think too that we forget some of the work that councilors do besides make decisions once a week at city hall. Councilors represent the city on various community and regional boards like the hospital or the Lester Centre. Those roles are important. I don’t know what other roles Jennifer had but somebody will have to take up the slack or the job doesn’t get done.

This thread started with a silly argument about Jennifer resigning before she was even elected. When she was elected MLA people wondered why she hadn’t decided to resign from council immediately. I am finding it interesting that the decision is more complex than it originally seemed.

97

[quote=“rupzuk”]K, I’ll play devils advocate and I haven’t read more than the last page of this thread…
How can you be sure she has no intention of returning?
[/quote]

Devil’s advocate is an honourable position.

I have no idea what Councillor/MLA-elect Rice’s intentions are. I merely pose the question. If she follows the suggestion, originating from Christy Clark no less, that MLA’s should seek leaves of absence from their council positions rather than resigning, it’s up to them to make their case to the council and the public. Being granted leave of absence isn’t an entitlement.

[quote=“rupzuk”]
Has she tried being an MLA?
Perhaps the constant travel will be too much?
Perhaps the pressure will be too much?
Perhaps she changes her mind and wants her old life back?
Improbable, yes.
Impossible, no.
So with a leave she has a potential fall back and we save some money.[/quote]

Creating a fallback just in case and meanwhile blocking someone else from being elected and performing the office would be a rather selfish. Putting personal interests above public interests also doesn’t square with the oath of office: “I will faithfully perform the duties of my office, and will not allow any private interest to influence my conduct in public matters;” < bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws … 3#section1 >

[quote=“rupzuk”]
And why would anyone bring up ethics in a political thread???
Compromising them starts the second they decide to run; it’s part of the job description.[/quote]

No, actually it’s not part of the job description. We have lots of reasons for being cynical about politicians, no doubt, but we are still entitled to expect that they will act honestly and in good faith, as the investigations of the Conservative senators illustrate.

98

By the time this is over, Christy Clark will have caused two byelections since taking over for Gordon Campbell. I don’t think it’s fair for her to suggest that other communities continue without a full slate in their council chambers when she is ready to spend money on her own seat. I suppose it’s apples and oranges with party money vs tax dollars, but still…

Aside from stopping ties, one extra person means one extra voice. I get the sense on these boards that many people are unsatisfied with the current council. Except saving a negligible amount of money (which has been pointed out several times could easily be extracted out of the budget), it seems to me that having one councilor less would at best be a neutral thing, but I suspect would be detrimental to the city–not only because of ties.

99

Would a leave of absence really be “honest and transparent”?

What’s a ‘leave of absence’? According to Black’s Law Dictionary it’s a “temporary absence from employment or duty with the intention to return”. There’s no doubt case law around that, and that’s also how most people would define a leave of absence, including because employment standards legislation says the same thing. An intention to return is what makes an absence a leave of absence rather than a resignation.

A councillor wishes to be relieved of their council duties, to focus on their MLA duties (a good idea) and also to avoid potential conflicts of interest (another good idea). They say to their council, ‘I wish to be granted a leave of absence’, which necessarily means that they intend to resume their duties at some point, but really they have no such intention. Is that honest?

Meanwhile, the council exercises powers under the Community Charter, one of which is that they can grant leaves of absence. But they don’t like that they are also required to hold and pay for a by-election unless the office is vacated during the year of a general election. The Legislature, when it delegated powers to municipal government, decided that councils should otherwise have a full slate to carry out their important and sometimes onerous duties. That is not really “arbitrary”. There is a public policy consideration in that requirement.

The council, having heard (in an honest and transparent manner) that the council member does not intend to return, exercises a power to grant a leave of absence, which is premised on the councillor intending to return, even though they know that that the councillor does not intend to return and has stated as much.

Is that honest? How ethical is that? And has the council correctly discharged its’ powers under the Community Charter or has it made an error?

Yes, and that also applies to Christy Clark’s suggestion that some MLAs should ask for leaves of absence even though they have no intentions of resuming their duties.

100

[quote=“BTravenn”]
Would a leave of absence really be “honest and transparent”?

What’s a ‘leave of absence’? According to Black’s Law Dictionary it’s a “temporary absence from employment or duty with the intention to return”. There’s no doubt case law around that, and that’s also how most people would define a leave of absence, including because employment standards legislation says the same thing. An intention to return is what makes an absence a leave of absence rather than a resignation.

A councillor wishes to be relieved of their council duties, to focus on their MLA duties (a good idea) and also to avoid potential conflicts of interest (another good idea). They say to their council, ‘I wish to be granted a leave of absence’, which necessarily means that they intend to resume their duties at some point, but really they have no such intention. Is that honest? [/quote]

Let’s assume that a councillor believes that the cost of a byelection is something that the community can do without and let’s also assume that from whatever method used (Mig’s famous “they asked around”), they believed that a good majority of the community felt the same. If a councillor then asks for a leave of absence and gives reasons for the leave and explains every intention of what that leave will involve, then yes, it would be honest and transparent. Whether it is bucking the legal definition or not is besides the point. The councillor is being open and honest.

[quote=“BTravenn”]Meanwhile, the council exercises powers under the Community Charter, one of which is that they can grant leaves of absence. But they don’t like that they are also required to hold and pay for a by-election unless the office is vacated during the year of a general election. The Legislature, when it delegated powers to municipal government, decided that councils should otherwise have a full slate to carry out their important and sometimes onerous duties. That is not really “arbitrary”. There is a public policy consideration in that requirement.

The council, having heard (in an honest and transparent manner) that the council member does not intend to return, exercises a power to grant a leave of absence, which is premised on the councillor intending to return, even though they know that that the councillor does not intend to return and has stated as much.

Is that honest? How ethical is that? And has the council correctly discharged its’ powers under the Community Charter or has it made an error? [/quote]

Well now it is getting interesting. Who should have the ultimate decision making authority on whether a councillor resigns or takes a leave. Who do you want making the decision on whether or not we have a by-election: a single councillor or the whole council? And does the council have a duty to its citizens or the Community Charter?

Supposing the councillor in good conscience decides that the by-election is too costly and feels that the citizens of the community agree. He/She asks for a leave. Then, if I am reading you correctly, it would be up to council to accept or reject that leave request. If the council feels an election is warranted they refuse the request. The councillor resigns and an election takes place. If the council is happy with the leave and the resulting cost savings then they accept the leave request.

Now we don’t necessarily have to go through that whole process. A council could recommend to the councillor what they would prefer before a leave request or resignation is tendered. The decision for a by-election ultimately rests with the whole council rather than one person.

[quote=“BTravenn”]

Yes, and that also applies to Christy Clark’s suggestion that some MLAs should ask for leaves of absence even though they have no intentions of resuming their duties.[/quote]

Christy Clark is actually late to this debate. I read about Scott Hamilton in Surrey either early in the election or maybe even before the writ was dropped. If I recall correctly, he was asking council what he should do if he won, as a by-election there is estimated at $800,000. Again my memory isn’t perfect, but the discussion was whether he should continue with both jobs until the new year and donate his salary to charity. I think that is still the debate down there.