Perhaps the City should consider purchasing the Cable Bay property?
The taxes have not yet been payed plus the project is severely flawed.

Interesting and blunt letter, re Communication Officer, from Gary Korpan http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/letters/story.html?id=3817b67c-ef3b-4275-9b04-ae14dea4c7f5 . He is also one of those that have not submitted campaign disclosures. Am curious to see how much he billed for storage of signs this time around.

Also on the subject of Communication Officer, I had an e-mail from Darrell Bellart asking if I would like to comment. When he called me the first thing he said was that criticizing the reporter was not the way to get a point across. Worked though as he did call me:)

I see in the report that they say the $140,000.00 for this position covers “all costs to the related position.” Seems to me that is not what was said at the FPCOW meeting.

Moving the FPCOW meetings to the SHAW Auditorium would be great if they actually intended to televise and post the meetings for the public. This would be at least a level of openness and transparency. Far better usage of funds than a communication officer. An even better usage would be to record and put on the website all committee meetings.

“At the 2011-AUG-08 “In Camera” meeting of Council, staff presented a report regarding park acquisition priorities that was based on a growing community interest in the acquisition of park property in the west Linley Valley area. ” First question; why was this done in camera? Seems to me the 5 – 6 million dollar cost would provide benefits to the community far in excess of the cost.

Re the priorities of the 2005 Parks, Recreation & Culture Master Plan; :
“Focus of the following features in future acquisition of lands for public open space in order of priority:
• waterfront and shoreline areas
• lakes, streams and river courses
• woodlands with extensive natural areas and consolidate future acquisitions and
dedications to achieve areas larger than totlots” Seems to me they fit right in with the potential purchase of the Linley Valley lands.

“That Zoning Bylaw 2011 No. 4500.004 to amend the height restrictions within the Single Dwelling Residential (R1/R1a) zones be abandoned.” Not getting this from the report. Seems to me the amendment is actually going for third reading.

—– Original Message —–
From: Sutherland, Don CSCD:EX
To: ‘Ron Bolin’
Sent: Friday, February 24, 2012 1:30 PM
Subject: RE: Municipal Conflict of Interest

The release of information discussed in a closed meeting of council is at the discretion of council – unless it is information that must not be released under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act or another Act. Sections 95 and 97 of the Community Charter deal with public access to municipal records.

__________________________________

From: Ron Bolin [mailto:rlbolin@telus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 2:06 PM
To: Sutherland, Don CSCD:EX
Subject: Re: Municipal Conflict of Interest

Hi Don:

Thanks for the comments, but they haven’t helped me to understand the conflict between the secrecy of the in-camera procedure and the requirement for public disclosure on expenditures.

The in-camera method of Section 90 must surely be recognized as one the greatest examples of Catch 22 in the world. By naming a clause under Section 90, the opportunity to determine whether it is legitimate is precluded. I guess this is a matter for our MLAs.

I am happy to report that the City of Nanaimo does use recorded votes, at least when in public. What they do in-camera is of course unknown. I have also been told that there is some work proceeding on a bylaw which would make in-camera decisions public when the need for secrecy no longer exists. This, of course, raises up another Catch 22. I hope they will find the intestinal fortitude to overcome it, as it cannot come too soon. This entire in-camera situation has given rise to a great deal more suspicion than a healthy democracy can withstand. Only about 26% of our eligible voters participated in November’s municipal election.

When you say: “Once a matter that was discussed in a closed meeting becomes public, information about the decision can be released.” am I to interpret this as meaning that the situation is the same, or different, from the ordinary in-camera situation which leaves the entire matter to the discretion of Council?

Ron

—– Original Message —–

From: Sutherland, Don CSCD:EX

To: ‘Ron Bolin’

Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 8:31 AM

Subject: RE: Municipal Conflict of Interest

Hello Ron,

Council can vote on any matter in a closed meeting as long as they cite the reason(s) listed in Section 90 of the Community Charter for closing the meeting. There is a restriction in the Charter that council cannot pass a bylaw in a closed meeting, but a bylaw is not required to authorize a contract – only a council resolution. Once a matter that was discussed in a closed meeting becomes public, information about the decision can be released. However, not all municipalities record how individual council members voted. Many of them only record whether motions passed or failed and the votes of individual council members are not recorded unless a council member specifically requests it. Also, municipalities will often refuse to release meeting minutes until the council has ratified them at a subsequent meeting as being correct.

As an aside, I see that the issue of how to record votes was recently debated by the Greater Victoria School Board. Here is a link to the story: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Greater+Victoria+school+board+record+votes+after/6182248/story.html

Don Sutherland

________________________________________

From: Ron Bolin [mailto:rlbolin@telus.net]
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 10:02 AM
To: Sutherland, Don CSCD:EX
Subject: Re: Municipal Conflict of Interest

Good morning Don:

Thanks for the prompt response. For your sin I would like ask you a related question.

A recent union contract was approved by our new Council at an in-camera meeting. There is a question about a possible perceived conflict of interest on the part of one or more candidates who were elected and received almost all their campaign contributions from unions and the bulk of it from the union whose contract was recently approved.

My question is this. I was advised that the vote could not be released as it was done in-camera. Can the vote on this money matter remain buried in an in-camera session? It strikes me that as no negotiations were concerned, only a vote, that this matter should have been done in open Council and not in-camera is the first place and that, in any event, it should immediately be made public for the reason outlined above.

Can you advise whether such an impasse is permitted?

Thanks,

Ron Bolin
Nanaimo

—– Original Message —–

From: Sutherland, Don CSCD:EX
To: ‘Ron Bolin’
Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2012 9:17 AM
Subject: RE: Municipal Conflict of Interest

Good morning Ron,

The only document that the Ministry has produced about conflict of interest is on our website at: http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/community_charter/governance/ethical_conduct.htm

Near the end of the page is a paragraph that states the following:

“Section 111 (application to court for declaration of disqualification) sets out the procedure for making application to the Supreme Court to have a member declared disqualified. A municipality, by a 2/3 vote of council, or 10 or more electors of the municipality may make the application to the Supreme Court to have a person disqualified.”

If you need information about the process for filing an application, the Supreme Court has a website that you might find useful at: http://www.courts.gov.bc.ca/supreme_court/self-represented_litigants/

The CivicInfo BC website is also be a very good source of information about local governments in BC. If you choose the “Documents” tab near the top of their website, you can search for information using key words such as “conflict.” The CivicInfo BC search engine goes to all local government websites to search for documents with the key word. CivicInfo BC’s website is located at: http://www.civicinfo.bc.ca/index.asp

Don Sutherland

Director
Advisory Services Branch
Ministry of Community, Sport and Cultural Development
Phone: 250 387-4025 Fax: 250 387-7972
Website: http://www.cd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/

______________________________________
From: Ron Bolin [mailto:rlbolin@telus.net]
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 3:45 PM
To: Sutherland, Don CSCD:EX
Subject: Municipal Conflict of Interest

Mr. Sutherland:

Excuse me if I am in the wrong place for this question and if so, please direct me to the correct one.

I would like to find a document which outlines at a citizens’ level, the manner in which to deal with either documented or perceived conflict of interest in a municipal environment. There is a document on the subject for candidates and there is the legislation itself, but I have found nothing which informs citizens about how they should proceed if they have a complaint.

Can you direct me to such a document?

Thanks,

Ron Bolin

Nanaimo

“It is not included as a recommended item solely because of the cost. In the absence of this position staff has recently structured a new staff communications committee that utilizes existing personnel resources from throughout the organization to tackle corporate communication challenges. While I am hopeful this committee will improve the City‟s corporate communications performance, it is too early to fully assess the effectiveness of this initiative.”

So … Was an assessment actually conducted? If so, what was the outcome of the assessment of the initiative? How was the justification for additional bureaucracy at City Hall arrived at?