ir the issue is about costs then like I stated earlier maybe the parties they were elected to can pony up the money or maybe the provincial government can. not sure if it was posted here or not but if i’m correct there is an MLA/Councillor willing to pay for the byelection in his riding. that could be an option too, therefore it is no longer about costs but doing what is right for the community.
If the councillor doesn’t intend to come back, and they are open and honest about that, it’s really a resignation disguised as a leave of absence, in order to circumvent the by-election requirements of section 37 of the Local Government Act. Calling a resignation a leave of absence isn’t being open and honest; it’s being disingenuous.
As for the legal definition being “besides the point”, the councillor and the council may get away with it, but if the issue ended up before a judge I wouldn’t be so sure about that. Arguments can go both ways and it would be up to the judge to decide the issue.
For that to happen all it would take would be for ten electors to apply to the court for a declaration that the office is vacant (sections 110-111 of the Community Charter) on the grounds that the council’s decision to grant leave was invalid because they knew that the councillor has no intention to resume their duties and the real reason was to get around the by-election requirements.
You haven’t read correctly. I am saying that if the councillor says that they have no intention of resuming their duties, the council cannot accept a leave of absence request that is really a resignation in disguise. As a matter of good faith they would have a duty to reject the request.
A councillor is completely within their rights to resign whenever they want to, for any reason (section 121), including to dedicate their full attention to being a full-time MLA. It’s entirely up to them, regardless of what the council thinks.
The Community Charter and the Local Government Act, not the council, ultimately determine the circumstances under which by-elections will be called or may be avoided. The council does not have a discretion to leave a council position vacant other than during the year of a general election.
Both. The council has a duty to the citizens to comply with the Community Charter and the Local Government Act. They can’t fudge things to to create a discretion that the law does not give them.
You should definitely run for council. Do you have all this stuff memorized?
I am still finding this an interesting topic so I did a quick google search of the councillors that were elected and found information on some of their plans. I didn’t bother with the mayors because I think there is less debate about the need for a by-election in those cases. As an aside, Jennifer Rice is the only NDP councillor who won a seat. All the others were Liberal.
Doug Bing MLA for Pitt Meadows will be taking a leave of absence to save on a by-election.
mapleridgenews.com/news/209697121.html
Linda Reimer in Coquitlam hopes to avoid a by-election by taking an unpaid leave of absence. Turnout for the last by-elections were 5% and 7.5% although the one with a 7.5% turnout did have referendum style ballots as well. Reimer admits that a leave does not follow the letter of the law and hopes that the government shows some flexibility to allow for a leave.
thenownews.com/news/Reimer+c … story.html
Marvin Hunt in Surrey is considering a leave of absence although he could try to hold down both jobs. Council is split on the issue and might discuss it at a future meeting.
thenownewspaper.com/news/Lea … story.html
Scott Hamilton in Delta is still mulling his decision but thinks he has council support for an unpaid leave. According to this article Clark does not want councilors to do both jobs.
peacearchnews.com/news/209525741.html
A link in the above article took me to another article where we learn that in a White Rock (pop. 18000) a recent by-election cost the community $32000 with a 14% turn out.
The examples from other municipalities show that Christy Clark’s suggestion about asking for a leave of absence to avoid a by-election does not have widespread support.
Of the 12 council members elected as MLAs, other than Ms Rice, to date 6 have resigned or intend to; 1 is pondering but there will probably be a by-election; 2 are not asking for leaves of absence; 2 are seeking leaves of absence; and 1 is confused.
…
Resigning:
Mayor Larry Fassbender of Langley will be resigning on the expectation that there will be a by-election to replace him < langleytimes.com/news/electi … 86101.html >.
Mayor Dan Ashton of Penticton will resign after being sworn in as MLA < castanet.net/news/Penticton/ … egislature >.
Mayor Mike Bernier of Dawson Creek resigned a week after being elected as MLA and there will be a by-election < energeticcity.ca/article/news/20 … esignation >.
Linda Larson will be resigning from Oliver’s council after being sworn in as an MLA and a by-election will be held, possibly in October < oliverdailynews.com/oliver-munic … n-october/ >.
MLA-elect Jackie Tegart has not left anyone guessing. She has resigned and the Ashcroft council will be holding a by-election in August < kamloopsnews.ca/article/2013 … lected-mla >.
Not much is known about MLA-elect Greg Kyllo’s intention, but before the election he said that if elected he would resign from the Sicamous council < langleytimes.com/news/electi … 86101.html >
…
Pondering:
Mayor/MLA-elect Jordan Sturdy of Pemberton is still pondering, but will be talking to his council < nsnews.com/news/West+Vancouv … story.html >. Best bet is that he’ll resign. The council wisely budgeted for a by-election.
…
Will not be requesting leave of absence:
In Coquitlam, MLA-elect Linda Reimer does not appear to buy into the leave of absence ruse. Mayor Stewart will be seeking council approval to request that the Province exempt them from the by-election requirements.
Simon Gibson in Abbotsford won’t be asking for a leave. He’ll be busy with MLA duties, but “will be available should anything on council require his attention”, then resign in January. < mapleridgenews.com/news/208741731.html > Under the Community Charter he’ll have to show up at least once every 60 days, to keep his municipal office.
…
Requesting leave of absence:
In Surrey, the majority of the council appear to be against giving MLA-elect Marvin Hunt a leave of absence, calling it “irresponsible”. One councillor put it very well: “I believe leaves of absence are given to people who intend to return to work, not to bridge a resignation”. According to the second article, it looks Hunt will be staying on as a councillor until January.
Scott Hamilton in Delta is all over the map. He thinks council will grant a leave of absence, but is prepared to stay on as a councillor, but if the Premier wants him to do something in Victoria that takes “inordinate time” (a cabinet appointment?) it’s all a “no-brainer”, whatever that means. Spoken like a true politician. Scott probably has a great future ahead of him in Victoria.
…
Confused:
MLA-elect Doug Bing says he will resign in January but will go on leave of absence until then, which he says will be confirmed after a meeting with the Mayor of Pitt Meadow. But the Mayor does not grant leaves of absence. Under section 110 of the Community Charter that’s up to the council, not the Mayor.
… and on closer reading the $32K cost of the White Rock by-election included a voter awareness mail out to every residence that the Rupert council would be unlikely to bother with. In Pitt Meadow (which is 40% larger than Rupert) Bing said that the"maximum" cost of a by-election would be $15K.
Most of the council members from the smaller municipalities (some of which are not that small) have or will be resigning even though that will result in by-elections. Even in bigger municipalities there is only mixed support for Christy’s leave of absence idea.
So what does this mean for Councillor/MLA-elect Rice? She should follow the example of others and resign. A by-election isn’t that big a deal.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
A by-election isn’t that big a deal.[/quote]
I am not sure what you mean by that. Maybe a by-election isn’t a big deal to you or me, but it seems like a big deal to the people involved. Not counting the mayors who I believe should resign so a replacement can take over, only two of the councillors have made up their minds about resigning. Some appear to be willing to stay on and do both jobs for the remainder of the year and some are hoping for a leave and some haven’t decided either way and are seeking advice from other council members.
Christy Clark has made it clear that she doesn’t want people doing two jobs and she has made it clear that she would like them to save on the cost of a by-election. That puts them in a bit of a bind. (At least our MLA doesn’t have to worry about what Christy Clark has to say.)
I hadn’t bothered looking up the mayors this morning but I found your link about the Pemberton mayor interesting. There was some reference to his resignation triggering multiple by-elections and I am wondering what that means. Perhaps a councilor will decide to run for mayor (can a sitting councillor run for mayor in a by-election without resigning his council position) and then if he wins, another by-election will have to occur to find a replacement for the new mayor.
Many people think that the fixed date provincial election should be in the fall because it allows for more scrutiny of the spring budget. It would also negate the need to worry about these by-election decisions. If a provincial election occurs in the same year as a municipal election there is no problem because winners will be off council anyway. If the provincial election occurs after one year of council then a by-election for the next two is obviously needed. If the provincial election occurs in the fall of the second year, then the winners just hang on for the month or two until the new year and council runs one member short for 10 months.
A by-election could be a big deal for our community that is already in the red around $1 million this year after CityWest didn’t ante up. Perhaps a leave of absence is the responsible thing to do in this environment.
The situation of a mayor isn’t any different from that of councillor under the Community Charter and Local Government Act. They’re both free to resign whenever they want and the by-election provisions are the same. So far 6 out of the 12 have resigned or have said that they will resign from their municipal offices without requesting leaves of absence. The situations of the rest are still up in the air other than Simon Green in Abbotsford, who will stay on as a councillor but only as needed.
The topic of this thread is what Jennifer Rice should do. She shouldn’t pay any attention to Christy Clark’s ethically shallow proposal that municipal officials resign under the guise of taking leaves of absence. That idea has gained little support even among Liberal MLAs who hold or recently resigned from municipal offices.
I’m sorry, DW, but I have to move on to other priorities. The answer to your question about whether “a sitting councillor [can] run for mayor in a by-election without resigning his council position” can be found in section 68 of the Local Government Act. Good luck with your research.
To make up for the cost of a by-election the Mayor and his entourage may have to cancel their annual pilgrimage to the 4th of July parade in Ketchikan. As was pointed out earlier, there’s always next year.
Here’s a thought: How much does the City (and Citywest) spend on advertising in the Northern View? More or less than the cost of a by-election? Easy way to pay for it, if you ask me. And since it seems it was the Northern View that was crying out for Rice to resign, then I think they wouldn’t mind taking a financial hit to pay for their principled political stance.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
I’m sorry, DW, but I have to move on to other priorities. The answer to your question about whether “a sitting councillor [can] run for mayor in a by-election without resigning his council position” can be found in section 68 of the Local Government Act. Good luck with your research.[/quote]
WHAT! YOU HAVE MORE IMPORTANT PRIORITIES THAN ME. AND BEING TOLD ON A PUBLIC MESSAGE BOARD OF ALL PLACES. TALK ABOUT HAVING YOUR HEART RIPPED OUT AND STOMPED ALL OVER!
Let me sum up my position.
I believe that a person should not try to do two public office jobs. ,
Choices:
- Resign immediately and cause a by-election. (In the case of a mayor, I believe that is the appropriate thing to do. I think a mayor is needed. I am not sure if the sixth councillor is needed especially for a year.)
- Hang around for the remainder of the year, doing nothing unless there is an absolute emergency, donating the salary back to the city, and then resigning in January thus saving on the cost of a by-election. One councillor down south appears to be leaning in that direction.
- Ask for an unpaid leave of absence for the remainder of the year and then resign in the new year thus saving the cost of a by-election. It does circumvent the intent of the leave process, but it is supported by our shallow, say whatever, Premier, and is being considered by at least three councillors down south.
So the issue has actually changed from whether an MLA should sit on council to whether or not we need a by-election. On this subject I am ambivalent.
There is the cost. We do not know the exact cost but the best guess is $15000+. Is that too much money. I have no idea, but there must be some point where people are going to say that it is too much money. (The 65% of people who did not vote for a full slate of candidates probably think a buck is too much.) Some have suggested the money can come out of expenditures that we do not think are necessary, like a junket to Ketchikan. But maybe instead we should be considering whether or not those junkets are necessary and save further money.
Some people think we should have the by-election because that is what has been written in various acts of governance. A lot of thought has been put into making those rules and we should not change them on a whim. Good point. But rules are not static. Circumstances will occur making even good ideas worth a second look. e.g. the fixed election date is a good idea that should be changed to the fall rather than the spring.
Some have suggested that we need the sixth councillor to avoid ties. A tie results in the motion being defeated. So the motion is defeated. A 4-3 vote against .
requires supporters to change the opinion of one councillor. A 3 -3 vote requires supporters to do the same thing. No difference.
And some have suggested that we need the extra voice. That council can survive but that the extra voice cannot hurt. For me, this is the strongest argument. Maybe in this by-election we will be surprised by someone coming forward with fresh ideas. If we do have a by-election I hope that is the case.
I said a long time ago that I found the thread interesting because what appeared to be a simple decision (now that Jennifer is the MLA-elect she should resign) has become much more complex.
We are now looking at how much democracy can cost and how many councillors a town needs and how we can circumvent rules that were made with all good intentions and even how shallow, dishonest and disingenuous our Premier can be.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
To make up for the cost of a by-election the Mayor and his entourage may have to cancel their annual pilgrimage to the 4th of July parade in Ketchikan. As was pointed out earlier, there’s always next year.[/quote]
Even if money became available as a result of a cost saving measure such as cancelling the trip to Ketchikan or by a reduction of City West advertising, as Mig suggested, could that money not be better spent elsewhere within operations where money is so tight? I’m leaning towards supporting Ms Rice staying on for a period of time but abstaining where there may be a conflict between positions. We can operate that way for a short period of time.
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
Even if money became available as a result of a cost saving measure such as cancelling the trip to Ketchikan or by a reduction of City West advertising, as Mig suggested, could that money not be better spent elsewhere within operations where money is so tight? …[/quote]
I think that there are two answers to that, one legal, one political.
Implicit in the by-election requirement is a public policy decision that municipal councils should have a full slate of members during their first two years in office, so that council does not degenerate into a little cabal as a result of deaths and resignations. By-elections better ensure representative local government.
The Liberals could have amended the Local Government Act to change that, but they didn’t and I doubt that they will, even with so many Liberal MLAs with municipal backgrounds.
As for our local political situation here, if you’re happy with a council that on balance comes across as anti-business and anti-development I can see why you would say that money could be better spent on something other than a by-election. I suspect that quite a few would agree with you.
Some of us, though, get tired of listening to council meetings that barely touch on the consequences of industrial development for the City’s tax base and local services. Instead the council pre-occupies itself with environmental and fisheries topics that are important, but that are mostly within federal and provincial jurisdiction. Municipal government is a minor player in those realms; it’s mostly a taxing authority and service provider.
Perhaps a by-election to replace Ms Rice will result in more of the same, but at least we (and prospective developers and investors) will know that the attitude of the current council reflects the prevailing view. Another possibility is that a by-election will bring greater focus on LNG and port developments as taxation and service issues that the City should be addressing more constructively.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
Even if money became available as a result of a cost saving measure such as cancelling the trip to Ketchikan or by a reduction of City West advertising, as Mig suggested, could that money not be better spent elsewhere within operations where money is so tight? …[/quote]
I think that there are two answers to that, one legal, one political.
Implicit in the by-election requirement is a public policy decision that municipal councils should have a full slate of members during their first two years in office, so that council does not degenerate into a little cabal as a result of deaths and resignations. By-elections better ensure representative local government.
The Liberals could have amended the Local Government Act to change that, but they didn’t and I doubt that they will, even with so many Liberal MLAs with municipal backgrounds.
As for our local political situation here, if you’re happy with a council that on balance comes across as anti-business and anti-development I can see why you would say that money could be better spent on something other than a by-election. I suspect that quite a few would agree with you.
Some of us, though, get tired of listening to council meetings that barely touch on the consequences of industrial development for the City’s tax base and local services. Instead the council pre-occupies itself with environmental and fisheries topics that are important, but that are mostly within federal and provincial jurisdiction. Municipal government is a minor player in those realms; it’s mostly a taxing authority and service provider.
Perhaps a by-election to replace Ms Rice will result in more of the same, but at least we (and prospective developers and investors) will know that the attitude of the current council reflects the prevailing view. Another possibility is that a by-election will bring greater focus on LNG and port developments as taxation and service issues that the City should be addressing more constructively.[/quote]
Thanks for providing the legal info. I will certainly agree with the political reasoning as well. Thorkelson for example has seemingly used the platform that Council provides to beat the drum of her union business. Always had an issue with that. Will a by election before a general municipal election make a big difference? I doubt it and chances are that most of the incumbents will be re-elected anyways. Seems like you have to bite and kick someone in a drunken rage at the beer gardens these days before voters take notice and show you the door.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
[quote=“Crazy Train”]
Even if money became available as a result of a cost saving measure such as cancelling the trip to Ketchikan or by a reduction of City West advertising, as Mig suggested, could that money not be better spent elsewhere within operations where money is so tight? …[/quote]
I think that there are two answers to that, one legal, one political.
Implicit in the by-election requirement is a public policy decision that municipal councils should have a full slate of members during their first two years in office, so that council does not degenerate into a little cabal as a result of deaths and resignations. By-elections better ensure representative local government.
The Liberals could have amended the Local Government Act to change that, but they didn’t and I doubt that they will, even with so many Liberal MLAs with municipal backgrounds.
As for our local political situation here, if you’re happy with a council that on balance comes across as anti-business and anti-development I can see why you would say that money could be better spent on something other than a by-election. I suspect that quite a few would agree with you.
Some of us, though, get tired of listening to council meetings that barely touch on the consequences of industrial development for the City’s tax base and local services. Instead the council pre-occupies itself with environmental and fisheries topics that are important, but that are mostly within federal and provincial jurisdiction. Municipal government is a minor player in those realms; it’s mostly a taxing authority and service provider.
Perhaps a by-election to replace Ms Rice will result in more of the same, but at least we (and prospective developers and investors) will know that the attitude of the current council reflects the prevailing view. Another possibility is that a by-election will bring greater focus on LNG and port developments as taxation and service issues that the City should be addressing more constructively.[/quote]
I Wonder how many people the City sent to Vancouver this weekend for the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. They never seem to publish a list of names of those who attend these Various trips. Could save on by election costs by making these trips a bare bones thing perhaps?
I made this point a couple years ago(ish) when Councilor Ashley abstained from voting on the new alternate school because of a conflict of interest she perceived simply because she herself happens to be a teacher: We elect people to city council because of who they are and what they do in our community, not despite these reasons. Councilor Thorkelson has done exceptionally well every time she’s run for council, and I don’t think it’s going too far to assume that it is because of her place within the local commercial fishing industry.
If we want pro-business and pro-industry people on council we need to run them and elect them when it counts–not shout for a byelection when we see the chance to sneak someone in, which reeks of the kind of political opportunism that has, at least in part, led us to the pathetic voter turnouts we see now at every level of government. If Ms Rice is compelled to step down and a byelection is called, a thing I think should happen, it should be to honor the democratic process.
[quote=“eccentric”]
I made this point a couple years ago(ish) when Councilor Ashley abstained from voting on the new alternate school because of a conflict of interest she perceived simply because she herself happens to be a teacher: We elect people to city council because of who they are and what they do in our community, not despite these reasons. Councilor Thorkelson has done exceptionally well every time she’s run for council, and I don’t think it’s going too far to assume that it is because of her place within the local commercial fishing industry.
If we want pro-business and pro-industry people on council we need to run them and elect them when it counts–not shout for a byelection when we see the chance to sneak someone in, which reeks of the kind of political opportunism that has, at least in part, led us to the pathetic voter turnouts we see now at every level of government. If Ms Rice is compelled to step down and a byelection is called, a thing I think should happen, it should be to honor the democratic process.[/quote]
I do agree with you to a point but we have to be cautious that our elected officials aren’t using this platform for their own self-serving interests. It’s been talked about for years how past Councils have controlled the small business sector in town for their own personal interests. We have to make sure that they represent us all well, and do what’s best for the community as a whole, not just whom they are associated with on a personal or business level.
Obviously each and every elected official should ideally possess a common set of qualities like fairness, honesty, integrity, etc… But beyond those common things the differences come from who someone is, what they believe, and what they do.
Another day, another explosion on Mount Todd
This back and forth between Todd and Rice in the Northern View has been HILARIOUS to read!
Is Todd the same guy who started this thread on HTMF, then freaked out because I posted a link to Lee Brain’s comments?
See here: http://forum.hackingthemainframe.com/t/finao-insults-thread-resurrected-from-the-wasteland/15585/1