The Council Key Date Calendar shows the following information regarding Council’s primary meeting schedule for 2012; i.e. Council Meetings, Committee of the Whole Meetings and Public Hearings.  The breakdown looks like this:

1. Council Meetings:   21 scheduled
2. Committee of the Whole Meetings:   16 scheduled (to date one cancelled and two specials added)
3. Public Hearings:  12 (to date one has been cancelled)

And then there are the secret In Camera meetings increasingly used by Council: 

The figure for 2012 has been extrapolated from the 11 In Camera meetings held thus far this year, a period of some 4.25 months.

In any event the number held in 2011 already exceeded that of Council Meetings.  What is going on behind those in camera doors that didn’t go on in previous years?  One may suspect that the 2006 Annual Municipal Report provides an answer to what happened in that year in the following:

“2006 Highlights

• Hired a new General Manager of Corporate Services to respond to senior staff
• succession planning needs.
• Conducted various Council strategic planning sessions to determine strategic direction.
• Achieved significant progress on the New Nanaimo Centre (NNC) initiative:
• Nanaimo Ice Centre completed.
• Construction of downtown parkade, new Council Chamber, community museum and conference centre under way.
• Foundry site cleared.
• Lot 50 prepared for transfer to Snuneymuxw First Nation.
• Hotel efforts ongoing.”

What happened following the 2008 election that led to the rapid and continuous growth of secrecy at City Hall?  Any ideas?

On Friday I was notified that my Daily News column for May 18 will be my last.  It seems that they will be making some changes to their op-ed and that I am to be one of them.  The job lasted a half a year and we will part, as we started, on good terms.  I have never, well maybe once, had cause for complaint about the treatment of the material submitted, and that was on some minor points of form in which it seems that I deviated from the DN standard practice and not on content.  It has been an enjoyable adventure and I have been invited to submit guest editorials in the future at my leisure.  In the meantime I will miss the comments which appeared in the on-line version of the paper, especially those which either expanded on the thoughts I was trying to convey or poured vitriol on me or my ideas.  Either way, the commenters were engaged.  Of course I will also miss the munificent remuneration.  ;-)  But I will have more time to devote to this blog which has seen scant effort from me lately.

In my penultimate column on May 4, I discussed an occurrence in my dealings with City Hall which, left uninvestigated or uncontested, would have led to a loss in the amenity value of my property and that of my neighbours for no offsetting compensation.  In Nanaimo where single lot subdivisions and development variances are common, it is possible for a citizen to lose the value of their property without even being aware that their pockets are being picked.  See:  http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=fa493202-4489-4f90-a158-f9303dcceb69&k=65342

The comments received on the column reflected on Staff and their role in dealing with the Public.  I must point out that I did not mean to imply that Staff was duplicitous: only that they did not take adequate care in taking positions which should have been checked for legality before, rather than after , the fact.  To the best of my knowledge Staff has never lied to me, though they often fail to divulge all the truth –and without prompting this is probably wise: are citizens not expected to play some part in their own interest?

In another point Frank Murphy notes that:

“…there are two competing principles here: City Hall infringing on the rights of others by high-handed even nefarious means; and the grandfathered right of “amenity value” of one property owner over another by simply having been there first. You are absolutely right to keep a very close eye on the machinations of City Hall. But my enjoyment of a view should not infringe on the right of someone to build on their lot in front of mine. I and my neighbours impacted have every right of course to purchase the property to preserve the view.”

He is quite correct.  Without this conflict, change would never happen.  But how to tell whether the change is for the better?  Two points in the case under discussion:

1. There was no opportunity to purchase the lot to preserve the view.  There was no lot.  In point of face the rules of the day said that there was to be no lot.
2. In most cases the measure of the benefit of change is whether that change advantages the many to the detriment of the few.  This was not such a case.  On the contrary, this case advantaged one to the detriment of many.

In this latter regard this City seems to be especially prone to isolated changes in zoning or development regulations which act, in effect, as block busting tools in a neighbourhood.  If change in a neighbourhood is desired, it should be confronted directly and the change should be made over the area of the neighbourhood rather than in a single lot.  This makes for meaningful neighbourhood discussion of the change and spreads the benefits which are presented by the change to all rather than to just a single property owner/developer.

The idea raised in the comments about a “non-profit group that would monitor the actions of city staff on behalf of its citizens.” Is a good one.  But we already have a non-profit group which can monitor the actions of city staff on behalf of its citizens.  It is called the public and it has the tools to keep itself informed (Council meetings in person, on tv or on line) and the tools to reflect its opinions via attendance, telephone, post, email, letters to the editor or discussion on any number of web sites or blogs.  It may be that what is needed is a strategy for how these efforts can be coordinated into a powerful voice.  Any ideas?

In a column for the Daily News on Friday, April 20, I wrote about the covenants that were to be placed on the possible sale of the old City Hall Annex and their implications:

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=6bf2c79d-e8d7-4f32-ac53-aa8eaa96706f

In a subsequent comment on it I wrote that,” I understand that the office building next to the New Annex on Dunsmuir which has some 70,000 square feet has just been sold for $5.3 million, has about twice the space and sold for 1/3 the price of our new City Hall Annex. It should also be noted that the demolition of the civic Arena with fewer square feet than the old annex cost tax payers some $567,678 dollars to demolish. This is about the same as the land assessment of the old annex. Those tales about selling it for $1 may well be true. And at that it would be much more than the nothing we got for demolishing the civic arena except, of course, one less ice sheet.”

In response someone with the nom de plume  KNOW IT ALL responded that, “Get your facts straight Ron Bolin. Property next door sold for $6.75 million and it also requires seismic upgrades. The City did look at it. These covenants are yet another example of how some councillors are out of touch with how real estate transacts. Ulimately a great condo site, but it won’t happen in 2 years…more like 10 when multi family market dynamics recover. The highest value of that site today is as a parking lot”

My response was, “@ Know it All. If the information I received was incorrect, I apologize. I guess a lot of this distrust could easily have been avoided had we had a public process with bids and all that attendant stuff. Why is it that so much in this City is undertaken under the table?”

And this is what is important here: why is so much of our business transacted behind closed doors?  Even with the advent of video recordings of Council, and soon to be those of the Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole at least for a brief period, the ever more frequent use of In-Camera meetings to make decisions which a) under section 90(1) of the Community Charter could be made public, and b) because of the reflexive nature of In-Camera practices provide a perfect example of Catch 22, whereby the openness needed to prove that secrecy is required by the clause would have to be broken to prove that it was justified.

We have heard a great deal about the coming of a bylaw which would allow In-Camera matters to be revealed when secrecy is no longer required.  This would at least provide a window into the practice.  Where is it?  Council’s need to develop better trust and rapport with Nanaimoites is evident in responses to the recent survey taken in conjunction with the City’s Strategic Plan.  Among some of the highest response rates to the questions asked, covered such factors as:

• consultation and communication (61% selected either 6 or 7);
• effective governance (2^nd highest ranking);
• progressive, collaborative governance and public service (55%);
• improve City Hall performance – governance, decision-making, communications/consultation, streamlining, efficiency (57%).

For more on the results of the Survey, see:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/blogs/StrategicPlanningBlog/first-survey-results-are-in?utm_source=First+Survey+Results+Are+In!+%28April+24%29&utm_campaign=Strategic+Planning+Blog+Email&utm_medium=email

In a motion at tonight’s FPCOW meeting (Finance and Policy meeting of the Whole, i.e. Council in the guise in which they can do anything they wish except pass bylaws), Council moved to have future FPCOW meetings recorded and placed for viewing on the City’s web site along those of “regular” Council meetings until they are moved to the New City Hall Annex when that building is completed.  Ignoring Staff advice,  Council voted six to nine to find their duty to inform the public over that of their own comfort with the Mayor and Councillors Johnston and Brennan voting against.

It is ironic that the actions taken in this meeting and the discussion that led to them will not be seen by the public in an official capacity until the minutes of this FPCOW meeting are approved at the next FPCOW meeting on May 7.  (They will be available in an unadopted form in the Agenda for the May 7^th meeting released on the afternoon of May 3.)  This kind of document, coming to us as minutes via 18^th century technology, provides only a late, abridged, incomplete, un-nuanced and often flavoured record of what took place.  Video recording, an inexpensive 21^st century technology allows the public to see how their business is being conducted either immediately or very quickly after the meeting is held and to see a complete record of it.

While I can understand the reticence of some Councillors to expose their actions to a broader segment of the population than is able to make a public meeting at 4:30 in the afternoon, I applaud Councillor Anderson’s motion and the concurrence of Councillors Bestwick, Kipp, Greves, Pattje and McKay in it for bringing public participation in Nanaimo’s public meetings into the 21^st century.

Also discussed and decided at the FPCOW meeting of April 23 were the following significant topics:

– the scheduling of “In Camera” Meetings (these seem to be more and more numerous);
– the 2011 Financial Plan Statements;
– 2012-2016 Financial Plan Bylaw;
– the Policy of Giving Preference to local suppliers;
– the Quarterly Report on Direct Award Purchases ($390,000);
– The Quarterly Report on Single Submission Purchases ($64,000).

There was pertinent and informative discussion on these topics which was worthy of being seen and heard by a wider audience than the 5 citizens in attendance at this afternoon meeting.

I have observed that there appear to be two fundamental theories about representative democracy.  On the one side there are those who believe that representative democracy is a 365 day per year activity and should reflect true democracy: that those elected as representatives owe it to their constituency to keep them informed and to inform themselves of their wishes.  On the other side are those who feel that the only time public involvement is truly required is once every three years when providence and an election chooses those with the right to rule.  Both these extremes are, of course, misguided, but watch our politicians at all levels to see where they fall along this continuum.

I take off my hat to those who sided with democracy as an ongoing though sometimes uncomfortable public process.

The agenda for Monday’s Regular Meeting of City Council is some 412 pages in length and more may come in the final amended version which will be out on Monday prior to the 7pm meeting in the Shaw auditorium.  If I were a Councillor I would certainly let it be known that the time between the release of the Agenda, usually on the Thursday afternoon preceding the Monday meeting, does not provide adequate time for the reasonable consideration of the business of the City of Nanaimo: and most especially not when the agenda is overweight with the lengthy, significant and detailed reports which form part of this one.

In addition to the usual 1 to 5 page reports usually to be found in an agenda we have the following:

• a 48 page report on the Westwood Tennis Club Land Use Contract;
• a 79 page report on the Public Hearing of Thursday, April 5, 2012;
• a 50 page report on Expressions of Interest for the Sale of the City Hall Annex;
• a 42 page report on RCMP Contract Renewal;
• a 68 page report on the 2011 Annual Financial Statements and KPMG Audit Findings  (pp 285-353. Does not match the agenda index.)

While I suspect that these subjects have been part of previous discussions, these documents are, in effect, the contracts that have been drawn on them and thus are worthy of detailed scrutiny before they are finally approved.  I am sure that our Councillors are well aware of their responsibilities in this regard and they deserve the time that it takes to ensure that Staff, as their agents, but with their own viewpoint in mind, have not overlooked something important to the public weal.  This was apparently the case when a deal was struck with Millennium Developments which paid them over $3 million taxpayer dollars directly for services which were never provided rather than putting the funds into an escrow account to be paid following  performance.  Responsibility is Council’s charge and commitment and I do not see how this can be done in a case like this.  I want my representatives to demand their right to sufficient time for appropriate oversight.  This seems to be a glaring case on which to make that demand.  All agenda items, barring emergencies items -which in a well-run organization should be few and far between- should be distributed at least a week in advance to both Council and the public for adequate scrutiny.

There will also be two important presentations at the meeting.  In the first, a representative of KPMG the City’s auditors will provide a presentation on the City of Nanaimo’s audited financial statements.  In the Second, Ms. Terry Hartley, Nanaimo’s HR Director and the principals of RETHINK (West) will give a presentation on the development to date of the Corporate Strategic Plan.  Both these are matters of significant consequence to the development of our City, and its business, social and financial well-being and deserve our full attention.

It may be noted that the agenda presented on line at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Agendas/C120416A.pdf

does not take note of the Notice of Motion given by Councillor Anderson at the last Council meeting regarding the recording of the other Council Meetings, i.e. the Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole (which even now is slated to become the Committee of the Whole and to be the only entry point for Delegations on matters not on the Regular Council Agenda.)  I have been informed that this was an oversight and will be added in the final agenda.  IT will be a great step forward in transparency if this motion passes.  One can only speculate on the message which Council is sending if it is defeated.

Things are happening out there in our Council and in our City.  On Monday aside from the scheduled Council meeting at 7pm, there is the usual morning get together as well as an 90(1) in-camera session scheduled for 11:30 am.  Be aware.  Be active.  Be alive.

In a March 31 article in the Nanaimo Daily News by Tamara Cunningham, Mayor Ruttan is quoted as saying that: “Most of the committee of the whole meetings are about rhetoric and ideas…” and appears to be, at best, lukewarm to these “other” Council meetings being held in the broader public eye of a recorded and easily available on-line and/or broadcast format.

These meetings have traditionally been held at 4:30 pm in the afternoon on alternate Mondays from “regular” Council meetings in the City Hall boardroom where there is barely enough space for Council and Staff, and little space for citizens.  They have not been televised or live recorded in any way so that their only record comes via Minutes of the meeting after several weeks, giving the public a very select and dated record.  These FPCOW, i.e. Finance and Policy Committee of the Whole, meetings can and do deal with virtually all matters excepting the passage of bylaws.  Financial and Policy decisions, among others, can and do get made at them.

For example at the FPCOW meeting next Monday, April 2, the meeting will deal with over $2,300,000 in estimates, allocations or reallocations and at least two significant proposals for changes in Council or Committee structure or procedures will be discussed and dealt with.  There will be a presentation regarding the City’s reserve funds which are in the tens of millions of dollars.  It also gives one of the last chances for the public to comment and or question the Budget/Financial Plan for 2012-2016.  Hardly, I would suggest, insignificant rhetoric and ideas.   The newspaper article can be found here:

http://www2.canada.com/nanaimodailynews/news/story.html?id=36cdf820-afb7-4fdd-9f2e-70300ca334a3&k=73724

The Agenda for the April 2, FPCOW meeting can be found here:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/UploadedFilesPath/Site_Structure/Corporate_Services/Corporate_Administration/2012_Committee_Agendas/FPCOW120402A.pdf

If you think that you deserve at least the possibility of seeing what happens at these “other” Council meetings and not being shut out, you can contact Council by email at:  mayor.council@nanaimo.ca asking that they use the video facilities in the VICC to record the meetings for access through the City’s web site and pursue broadcast possibilities with Shaw Cable who currently provide tv access to the “regular“ Council meetings, or you can contact Councillors individually through their listings at:

http://www.nanaimo.ca/EN/main/municipal/city-council/CityCouncil.html

We deserve to know what our elected officials are doing on our behalf.

I don’t know what others think but we, the taxpayer, have shelled out more than $1.4 million for the new Economic Development Corporation and with the latest stories coming out from the D/N I am not impressed.  Ms. Cudahy is being paid quite well for the job she is supposed to do and in some ways she fits right in with the reasons why many choose not get involved.  Its almost like she has spent years here instead of about 6 months.  As I mention in one of my comments on a story; how many strikes before she is out?

March 30 Work on tourism Nanaimo website goes to Toronto

March 29 Philip Wolf: Cynicism has legitimate roots for Nanaimo residents

March 28 Economic development CEO wants to end negativity about the city

Editorial: Nanaimo could use return of civic pride

The last two stories prompted me to send the following letter to the D/N on the 28th, though if I had known what was to come on the 28th & 29th I might have held off.  If you haven’t already checked out the comments on the D/N stories please do, some are quite amusing:)

———-

As one of those that frequently speak my mind I want to say I contend the vocal minority aka. naysayers actually care a great deal for this city and recognize its potential to become great.

Should we sweep our opinions under the rug, gloss over the facts, or like the three monkeys; hear no evil, see no evil, and speak no evil? I think not. In recognizing potential one must also recognize flaws. Only then can we work to make things better.

Statements like Ms. Cudahy’s ‘the idea we have a lot of unemployed or that people can’t find jobs here is a bit of an urban legend,’ are a perfect example of what raises people ire. Perhaps Ms. Cudahy would like the newly created position of Communication Manager with the City.

Some not to pretty truths about Nanaimo; 18th worst of 92 health areas for Economic Hardship in BC; 15th – More than twice the provincial average – for those on Income Assistance and E.I.; 15% of the population of Nanaimo receiving some form of Income Assistance; 11th highest for youth 19 – 24 on income assistance; 40% of the workforce has only part time jobs; 7.8 percent of families live on less than $20,000 per year; 26% of wage earners earn less than $15,000.00 per year, $3000.00 below established poverty levels.

Sifting through spin there is much the new Economic Development Corporation is doing that makes sense and can have a positive impact however let’s not gloss over the reality. I am proud to be associated with those that are willing to speak out; I am proud to call Nanaimo home; I am proud to be working towards making the community a better place for ALL.

———

Save Linley Valley West, a group of Nanaimo residents concerned about the potential destruction of a unique environment and habitat in the west side of Linley Valley, is hosting its first-ever public forum on Wed. April 4 at the Kin Hut, 2730 Departure bay Rd., starting at 7 p.m.

So far, many followers of this initiative have met informally on Facebook, and have shared ideas, photographs and their own enthusiasm for the cliffs, woodlands and wetlands and the wildlife that lives there. People of all ages walk through the area on a daily basis and many have photographed Linley West in every season.  Over 2400 have signed petitions in support of this campaign.

The core group of organizers has met with Nanaimo City Council on several occasions. Despite initial concern about the potential damage from development and then passing, almost unanimously, a motion on Feb. 27, 2012, to learn more about how to protect Linley Valley, Council then reversed this motion just two weeks later.

Organizers are developing a plan of action to fundraise and build more community support for protecting this fragile environment. The April 4 meeting is an opportunity for those interested in Linley West’s future to share ideas and contribute to this plan.

For more information contact:

Joanne (driftwoodart2003@yahoo.ca)

Facebook: Save the Linley Valley Westside

First let me apologize for letting things go for a couple of weeks.  We all have a funk now and again, and I had mine.  I trust it may not come again til the weather turns crappy again.

While trying to find out about the training required to be a Communications Manager, I ran across the following program from the Centre for Strategy and Communication in London.  Take a look at the curriculum and see if this is what we want to pay $140,000+/year in perpetuity:

Training for a Communications Manager

© 2012 The Centre for Strategy and Communication, 140 Old Street, London EC1V 9BJ

http://www.the-centre.co.uk/

Most popular Communication courses

• Assertiveness skills: a practical approach
• Event management: advanced event management
• Event management: an introduction
• Handling difficult people and situations: essential tools
• Handling the press and media: how to get your story covered
• Influencing skills
• Parliamentary lobbying
• PR strategies that work
• Presentation skills: one day course – making confident and effective presentations
• Radio and Television Interviews

I also found a program at Royal Roads in Victoria, but I couldn’t get a grip on what they were trying to communicate.

http://www.royalroads.ca/topic/communications

Give it some thought.  There is still time to ask Council to communicate with us directly rather than through a mouthpiece.

Nanaimo’s Finance Policy Committee of the Whole (FPCOW), the OTHER Council meeting, met for the first time on March 5 in the Shaw Auditorium.  This was a result of their recent decision to meet there for reasons of accessibility at least until the Board Room in the New City Hall Annex is ready.  This move makes possible the video recording of FPCOW meetings just as is done for the “regular” Council meetings which we can now follow on Shaw Cable, direct on-line through the City’s web site, or by the recorded video that is maintained at the City’s web site.

In thinking about the programs associated with these two different Council meetings it is worthwhile to consider the somewhat different functions which they perform.  Bylaws can only be passed in a “regular” Council meeting.  For this reason they are heavy on the land development component of the City’s activities. For this reason, many of the items found on a regular Council agenda are of interest primarily to a neighbourhood or a relatively restricted area around an application for a rezoning or a development permit.  Outside the OCP and Zoning bylaws, the majority of such matters are primarily of interest to a relatively restricted part of the community.

In dealing with Financial and Policy matters, however, the FPCOW meetings cover subjects of general interest across the Community.  It has been a shame that these meetings have been held in a venue which provides no communication facilities, where no audio or video record of the meeting is captured, where seating is very limited, and additionally, the meetings are held at a time when most citizens are unable to attend, i.e. 4:30 in the afternoon.

The move to the Shaw, with the necessary facilities in place, makes it possible to overcome all of the above impediments to the ability of citizens’ to see their Council in action on matters of financial and policy concern to all.  Looking at our municipal election last November where barely 1 in 4 eligible voters chose to go to the polls, one can but wonder if ignorance of what is happening at City Hall plays a role.  Here is our chance to open a window on our City to our Citizens.  We should take it.  To make this happen will require political will on the part of our Council who, when this idea was broached and at least initially, expressed some concern about losing the coziness of the current situation.  If you agree with me that the FPCOW meetings should be available to the public on-line at the City’s web site, contact our Mayor and Councillors.

Watching FPCOW meetings can help you to understand why our 2012 budget and, by extension, our Financial Plan, is now larger that it was when it was first presented to Council by Staff.