I served as a council member after Mayor Lester , but yes we all got different portfolios , two or three sometimes and yes we attended committee mtgs where we reported back to council. We consulted with citizen groups around the community. I must say it again this council is lacking in so many ways and it seems like there is a Gag order in the works.
Okay, I hate to burst a few bubbles, but it’s the only way to get the wrap off your heads. First, I’ll address BOW: Prince Rupert doesn’t need to hire a superhero (though if the price is right…), it needs to take a more adult and realistic look at itself and what it can offer the world. I hear mumbles of things like rebuilding and opening the gondola. You have no idea of how tiny you are thinking. What is it going to take to really develop Rupert? Okay, you asked for it. The first, inescapable, and most valuable thing is the stabilizing the island. Will it result in property damage? Yes. Is there a high risk of property damage without stabilization? Yes. This will allow for the infrastructures to be laid to build a city upon. The entire mountain will become prime ocean view properties, with roads and streets now possible. Is this a mega project? You bet your ass. It is absolutely critical to all real future development, and has historically been development’s biggest obstacle. While I do not have knowledge of the infrastructure Mr. Hayes had planned, I can be certain it would have included much more than was ever done. To have done so then would have required stabilization. The up side is that Rupert is still small, so damage will be minimal.
There are huge grants available, provincially, federally and internationally to pay for the work. Trust me, once word got out investors would trample each other. But, as long as the people believe that putting new glass in stores on 3rd, or a few gallons of paint is all it’s going to launch Rupert into the future, it is doomed!!! You, the people of Rupert are its salvation, now wake the hell up, pop your heads past that sphincter and get real.
To those who believe in committees: I remember getting a call in 2001 from Pete Lester. He asked if I’d come visit him the next time I was in Rupert. I did and we had a good visit. Before leaving, I put my hand on his shoulder and asked, “Pete, what is the secret to your political success?” He kind of cackled and smiled, leaned in close and said, “Committees.” I came back to PG and got to thinking about what the heck he meant. Then the light finally went on!!! What Pete was saying is that the way you control those near, and those you fear, is by establishing a committee to address their very important concerns. The loudest, most passionate would of course head up the new “committee”, and would be assigned the task of assembling others who share the passion to study, review, evaluate and recommend the matter, bringing it back to mayor and council in six months. Here’s the beauty. The first week, 30-1,000 people are all rah-rah and gung-ho. Within a month that number will reduce by 20-30% due to lack of real interest, personality conflicts, etc. Within two months there is only a shrinking core group left, still focused, but beginning to resent the effort and lost time. Within 4 months only a few members of the committee remain, and by six months, even the most vocal opponent, or internal competitor, is reduced to an embarrassed ass who has little desire to flaunt it in front of council. They were left with no one to blame but themselves, Pete always looked as if he cared, and another competitor/detractor became political flotsam. I called him the next day to confirm my interpretation, which he acknowledged as correct. The man was slicker than owl poop on a doorknob. If the committee does manage to survive and put forth recommendations, it is then referred to another “committee”, and the whole process begins again.
So simple, so effective. Now, tell us again about the benefits of “committees” 
Just have to say like your post and have to agree with your interpretation of “committees” as it is a standing joke around town whenever you hear of a new one starting for one reason or another. One can almost bet on the long-term prognosis, you never hear from them again and they become yet another “whatever happened to…?” Rather a sad joke must say !.
[quote=“wildwill”]
To those who believe in committees: I remember getting a call in 2001 from Pete Lester. He asked if I’d come visit him the next time I was in Rupert. I did and we had a good visit. Before leaving, I put my hand on his shoulder and asked, “Pete, what is the secret to your political success?” He kind of cackled and smiled, leaned in close and said, “Committees.” I came back to PG and got to thinking about what the heck he meant. Then the light finally went on!!! What Pete was saying is that the way you control those near, and those you fear, is by establishing a committee to address their very important concerns. The loudest, most passionate would of course head up the new “committee”, and would be assigned the task of assembling others who share the passion to study, review, evaluate and recommend the matter, bringing it back to mayor and council in six months. Here’s the beauty. The first week, 30-1,000 people are all rah-rah and gung-ho. Within a month that number will reduce by 20-30% due to lack of real interest, personality conflicts, etc. Within two months there is only a shrinking core group left, still focused, but beginning to resent the effort and lost time. Within 4 months only a few members of the committee remain, and by six months, even the most vocal opponent, or internal competitor, is reduced to an embarrassed ass who has little desire to flaunt it in front of council. They were left with no one to blame but themselves, Pete always looked as if he cared, and another competitor/detractor became political flotsam. I called him the next day to confirm my interpretation, which he acknowledged as correct. The man was slicker than owl poop on a doorknob. If the committee does manage to survive and put forth recommendations, it is then referred to another “committee”, and the whole process begins again.
So simple, so effective. Now, tell us again about the benefits of “committees” [/quote]
Okay.
That’s an interesting story about Peter, but he wasn’t the only guy that figured that out. We were taught much the same thing in business program at university. Setting up committees comprised of concerned stakeholders is pretty much the drill when trying to defuse an issue, deflect attention from what the firm (or public body) really wants to do, which is to proceed on with business as usual with minimal hindrance.
Several examples were discussed in class. One case study that I recall quite clearly was about Columbia University during 60s. The administration building was occupied, classes were interrupted, the place was falling apart due to civil unrest. So in a lull in the state of siege, various sides were brought together to sit on a committee representing virtually every faction. They of course never agreed on anything, and before they compiled their final report the 60s had turned into the 70s, the world had moved on and nobody cared about what the committee had concluded, assuming that they had concluded anything at all.
The examples that I’m citing from other towns and cities, and that I suspect what JC is talking about with reference to the post-Lester era on city council, is not about citizens committees brought together to give their thoughts on whatever, with a hidden agenda of giving the appearance of doing something but the intention of achieving little or nothing at all.
In other places, and here in the past, councillors have responsibilities and accountabilities for particular issues as well as their general duties. They hold one or more portfolios and there may (or may not) be related committees that they sit on, which may (or may not) have representatives from outside of the council. They meet with citizens and officials about issues related to their porfolios and/or committees, outside of the regular council meetings. They become better informed than they would be if their function was largely limited to attending regular council meetings and receiving reports from the administration once or twice a month, which appears to be how things are done here these days. I think that’s the advantage to a portfolio and/or council committee system.
If you don’t have a system of governance like that, where individual council members have particular responsibilities for particular issues, what do you have? Here, it seems, the result is a council where everyone is responsible for everything, which in practice means that no one is responsible for taking the lead on anything in particular. I think that’s part of the malaise that seems to afflict this council. I don’t think that council portfolios and committees are a cure-all or quick fix, but that seems to be part of what’s missing here.
I occasionally went to meetings at City hall during the Lester era. What I noticed is that Peter would invite the councillor responsible for the relevant portfolio. Was that some kind of devious plot on his part to stonewall issues? I don’t think so. Sure, Peter was a cagey politician, but he was also a skilled executive. If an issue might end up at the council table, I would rather that it had been discussed in advance in some detail with council members than not. The alternative seems to be a less involved, less participatory council. What’s the advantage of that?
Peter wasn’t a fan of the gondola and other expenditures on Mount Hayes. If the private sector wants to develop ocean view lots on Mt Hayes then it should seek private capital and do so, without expecting Rupert taxpayers to pay for it or backstop the debt. If anything, this place should be selling off socialized enterprises, not creating new ones.
BT you are a person who exhibits immense intelligence, which is a two edged sword. You are articulate, direct and obviously well educated. I have to wonder though, are many of your comments your actual opinion, or are they the result of years of scholastic white noise? I have a gut feeling that if BOM is looking for a hero, he should be looking your way, and I feel that you should spend less time illustrating your intelligence, and more time using it.
The jist of this thread is public apathy, the cause and effect. I applaud concerned citizens organizing to address community concerns, we need more of them everywhere today. The truth be known, most people feel that by casting their vote their civic obligation has more than been fulfilled. They figure they have just elected/appointed/hired the solution to their problems, and if they didn’t, they just try a new combination the next time.
What Rupert needs is a leader that figuratively packs one hell of a punch while wearing a velvet glove. The naysayers, obstructionists and protectionists need to become public roadkill for Rupert to move into the future. Where I come from, we commonly referred to this as “Biotch Slapping”. I have a strong hunch that once you let go of stale preconception, and release your inner self, you will be a force to contend with. The worst case scenario is for you to continue to rely on experts. They are experts because they couldn’t do anything of any consequence themselves, and instead gave themselves over to studying those who do. My father always said, “There are two kinds of people in this world; Legends, and people who talk about legends.” Chose your path wisely.
I quite enjoy your posts Wildwill but I am getting confused. (Not unusual for me by the way.) In an earlier post you dismissed committees but now you are saying
“I applaud concerned citizens organizing to address community concerns, we need more of them everywhere today.”
And then you say
“What Rupert needs is a leader that figuratively packs one hell of a punch while wearing a velvet glove. The naysayers, obstructionists and protectionists need to become public roadkill for Rupert to move into the future.”
I have no problem with the second sentence (as long as we can identify them) but the first sentence appears to be hunting out a Messiah, and he only shows up every couple of thousand years. Do you have any suggestions as to who you think that candidate might be? Any examples from other jurisdictions?
D: We are all Messiahs, if we chose to be. Not many do, because the job description includes “pain and suffering”. To be a true leader, you need to be a true servant. There’s not too many people willing to be a servant anymore. Too many words are now spoken and too few actions are taken. Everyone’s walking on eggshells, terrified of doing anything “drastic”, when drastic is exactly what the doctor ordered. You do not need to search for a giant to lead you, or a messiah. All you need is a shepherd with a sling.
As to any confusion regarding committees, to me, there is a vast difference between groups and committees. There is an old saying that says, “Never doubt that a small group of committed individuals can change the world, indeed nothing else ever has.” A committee is a small deliberative assembly that is usually intended to remain subordinate to another, larger deliberative assembly. Note the “to remain subordinate” clause. Groups bow a knee to no one. They are as powerful as hurricanes, as unstoppable as tsunamis. To give a different perspective, a committee is usually struck to investigate, to “try” to understand all the dynamics at play, and then to move forward. A group shoots first and apologizes later, but at the end of the day, the job gets done - now!
I hope this helps dispel your confusion.
To be sure there is a difference between groups (study) and committees. Ever heard that a camel is a horse designed by committee?
no, but it’s entirely plausible!
Not sure if this is completely on topic, but I think it is pertinent.
Carole Taylor will not run for the Liberal leadership because
“Honestly, you don’t get good debate in politics. Take health care for instance, if you try to have a debate you get accused of being opposed to the health care system,” she said. “Debate has to happen somewhere else. You need to be able to discuss ideas without hostility and getting defensive … where people can challenge ideas and ask questions. The academic world is where it can happen.”
And politicians won’t be the people with society’s solutions.
“Change and policy happens when the community decides it wants it,” she said. “Big ideas and big movements start with individuals and groups.”
“You need to be able to discuss ideas without hostility and getting defensive … where people can challenge ideas and ask questions.” - Carole Taylor
Too bad Carole James doesn’t think this way. Look what happened when Bob Simpson tried discuss ideas. Bob already had three strikes against him; he had a penis, he was caucasion and he was charismatic. That made it a WHOLE different story. The rampant sexism within the NDP, spurred by militant feminists and gays, is nauseating. The running of the party has become an absolute disgrace to its founders. At one time it was the “people’s party”, now it’s a pity party to be pitied. At one time all members were equal, but that was sooooo long ago.
“Change and policy happens when the community decides it wants it. Big ideas and big movements start with individuals and groups” is true.
[quote=“wildwill”]“You need to be able to discuss ideas without hostility and getting defensive … where people can challenge ideas and ask questions.” - Carole James
Unless you’re Bob Simpson, who happened to have three strikes against him; he had a penis, he was caucasion and he was charismatic. Then it’s a WHOLE different story. God, how I despise hypocrites. And the rampant sexism within the NDP, spurred by feminists and gays, is nauseating. The running of the party has become an absolute disgrace to its founders. At one time it was the “people’s party”, now it’s a pity party to be pitied. At one time all members were equal, but that was sooooo long ago.[/quote]
You do realize you just quoted Carole Taylor, right?
[quote=“eccentric”]
You do realize you just quoted Carole Taylor, right?[/quote]
… and Margaret Mead:
I’m don’t think that the above quotes and aphorisms say much about civic engagement. We seem to be moving from how city council consults with its’ citizens to the solution being messianic leadership and now some kind of popular movement lead by a group of vanguardists who shoot first and ask questions later and then apologize.
[quote=“eccentric”]
[quote=“wildwill”]“You need to be able to discuss ideas without hostility and getting defensive … where people can challenge ideas and ask questions.” - Carole James
Unless you’re Bob Simpson, who happened to have three strikes against him; he had a penis, he was caucasion and he was charismatic. Then it’s a WHOLE different story. God, how I despise hypocrites. And the rampant sexism within the NDP, spurred by feminists and gays, is nauseating. The running of the party has become an absolute disgrace to its founders. At one time it was the “people’s party”, now it’s a pity party to be pitied. At one time all members were equal, but that was sooooo long ago.[/quote]
You do realize you just quoted Carole Taylor, right?[/quote]
Whoops, I bad! Thanks for pointing out my error!
I agree, but only because I do not wish to engage the perpetual “Which came first, the chicken or the egg?” debate. However, in my opinion, any city council member that has to “consult with its citizens” to be aware of their needs, should be bloody well be ran out of town. If they don’t know what’s important to the citizens BEFORE they are elected, don’t expect their interest to pick up once they are.
For some, rehashing and reiterating becomes a way of life. Like a dog raised in a cage, around and around and around they go, even when set free. People don’t want more talk. THEY WANT ACTION!!! Get with the program.
But, focusing on how nothing gets done, by people who don’t want to show up to do it, helps ease everyone back into that comfortable rut that seems to be loved. For the record, “groups of vanguardists” have given you every comfort that you know. From 8 hour work days to Disney World. From operating systems to satellites. All of the comforts that you take for granted originated from creativity, daring and bravery, not from repetitive civil engagement, failed photo-ops and political agendas. Rupert has had decades of political intercourse, and like American Brandy, after all is said and done, the only thing everyone ended up with was a sore arse.
The consulting process, as it is presently designed, will most likely create nothing new and it will provide additional ‘do nothing’ time for the mayor and council. It will, however, provide an albeit meaningless but warm feeling for those who have such needs. I’m alright, you’re alright Oprah.
What is it that needs to decided through this fuzzy consulting process? That Rupert is in economic distress? That vandalism, violence and crime is rampant? There’s a drug & alcohol problem? There’s high unemployment? The population is in severe exit mode?
The issues are, and have been clear for quite some time now. Time to move on…something.
Honestly, I am confused!! Does anyone know for sure if council members actually read the Quality of Life Official Community Plan?
Reviewing the document on the City’s web site, princerupert.ca/page.php?id_ … tion=4#OCP, correct me if I am wrong, does it not say that council is have a report card and report back to the citizens? And if this is the case, does anyone recall what that report said? Does anyone know the tracking system that should be in place? Heaven forbid if there are task forces, that would mean something has to be done?
I saw this and thought some might be interested in knowing if they have not already seen it.
Pg 55 of Quality of Life Official Community Plan – Schedule “A”
Accountability to Community Process Indicators
Council conducts a community survey to measure the community’s progress (baseline set in 2007)
Council prepares a report card to inform the community of its progress, to track community’s level of satisfaction on Quality of Life, to identify new issues, and to celebrate its achievement Task Forces have broad representation. Members include those who can make the time commitment, can positively work as a team, have assets to contribute and come from a variety of backgrounds (i.e. the First Nations community, different age groups, lifestyles, and perspectives)
Community-Based Indicators
The number of quality of life issues identified by the community in 2007 has been reduced from 22
The number of quality of life strengths identified by the community in 2007 has been increased from 17
Elements defined as strengths in 2007 have not become issues. The number of issues defined by First Nations and the age group between 19-34 has been reduced
Other Rigorous Statistics
Annual report card prepared, and tracking system established Consistent community survey is undertaken and reviewed every 3 years
Community Plan is reviewed every 5 years Taskforces are established
[quote=“dailymews”]
What is it that needs to decided through this fuzzy consulting process? That Rupert is in economic distress? That vandalism, violence and crime is rampant? There’s a drug & alcohol problem? There’s high unemployment? The population is in severe exit mode?
The issues are, and have been clear for quite some time now. Time to move on…something.[/quote]
And that is just it. Finding the solutions is the problem. And the biggest problem is the economic distress that we have been suffering.
People on these forums have been critical of council. Many have lost confidence in council’s ability to solve our problems.
So if council can’t come up with solutions, we have two choices. Wait another year, maybe vote some of them out and hope that the replacements are more creative. (Sorta what we thought we were doing last election.)
Or, members of the community should start offering up some solutions through this consultative process or even in this forum which I know is read by some in city hall.
I personally have a hard time criticizing council even though I might not be happy with what they have done (more precisely not done) because I am not sure what could be done. I am not trying to get council off any hook. Their role and the role of city staff should be to seek out solutions. And that might mean asking for help from community members. Right now, beyond channelling Pete Lester, I’d like to know what others think council should be doing. Specifically.
[quote=“DWhite”]
I personally have a hard time criticizing council even though I might not be happy with what they have done (more precisely not done) because I am not sure what could be done. I am not trying to get council off any hook. Their role and the role of city staff should be to seek out solutions. And that might mean asking for help from community members. Right now, beyond channeling Pete Lester, I’d like to know what others think council should be doing. Specifically.[/quote]
Honestly? Listen to what the people are saying. Sure there are some citizens that drive council bananas and some council members take things personally, rather than actually listen to the questions, concerns and comments.
I know council does not have a magic wand and fix things, but perhaps if they can honestly show more respect and listen to those who do address council. It takes courage to stand before council and address questions, concerns and comments and I commend those who can and do.
[quote=“dailymews”]The consulting process, as it is presently designed, will most likely create nothing new and it will provide additional ‘do nothing’ time for the mayor and council. It will, however, provide an albeit meaningless but warm feeling for those who have such needs. I’m alright, you’re alright Oprah.
What is it that needs to decided through this fuzzy consulting process? That Rupert is in economic distress? That vandalism, violence and crime is rampant? There’s a drug & alcohol problem? There’s high unemployment? The population is in severe exit mode?
The issues are, and have been clear for quite some time now. Time to move on…something.[/quote]
The issues are and have been clear, as you say, and are well known. I think that the intention of the consultation process has been more about discussing possible solutions.
The city only deals with some issues. Municipalities are created by the province to administer certain services and regulate certain activities. They’re not created to be agents for revolutionary change, vanguardist or otherwise. Only so much should be expected of the city’s leaders. They’re not messiahs; nor are they standing on a wall providing the freedoms and comforts that we enjoy and take for granted.
Whether by design or not, the sessions come across as mostly being for the senior staff (“the boys”) to consult with interested citizens; hopefully to get ideas and input, or perhaps just to say that they’ve consulted, so that their policy recommendations will have added weight. The council members seem to have been little more than spectators. Most of the council did not even attend the first session.
Perhaps some people are okay with that. I think that some of us, though, feel or at least wonder if perhaps the officials we have elected should play a more active role in developing solutions, to the extent that local government can provide solutions.
To give an example, this year the city will spend over $5.2 million on RCMP operations and facilities and another $2.5 million on the fire department. Has the Mayor, as the city’s CEO (that’s legally his role), appointed a councillor (or a small committee) to be responsible for public safety, as the go-to person and as first among equals when those issues come up on the council agenda. Not that I’ve heard of.
Does that not seem a bit odd? Would appointing councillors to take the lead on that and other issues be a game changer? Probably not. Would it make a difference? I wouldn’t be surprised. Most anywhere else discussions of council member responsibilities have moved past that point. Council members are assigned responsibilities for particular issues as a matter of course, and mayors sometimes shuffle those appointments like the PM shuffles his cabinet (probably for similar reasons). But not here.
This place seems to have settled into a comfortable situation (for some) where city government comes across as being dominated by non-elected officials, as the consultation sessions illustrate. The notion that things could or should be otherwise, or a even somewhat different, for some reason seems unthinkable.