Category Archives: VanRamblings
Power Outage: Posting to VanRamblings Will Resume Friday
VanRamblings has experienced a power outage (tree fallen onto power lines on block where VanRamblings resides, knocking out the transformer).
Posting to VanRamblings will resume either later today, or on Friday.
Decision 2014: Vision Vancouver in a Breach of Its Fiduciary Duty?
Wednesday evening, former Vancouver City Councillor and respected civic affairs barrister Jonathan Baker wrote to VanRamblings to apprise us of Schlenker v. Torgrimson, a BC Court of Appeals case heard in 2013, which ruled that Salt Spring Island Councillors were in a conflict of interest arising from a direct or indirect pecuniary interest, in respect of having voted to award two service contracts to societies of which they were directors (see Reason for Judgment in the Schlenker v. Torgrimson link above).
In the written reasons for Judgment in the BC Court of Appeals, the Honourable Mr. Justice Donald — concurred in by The Honourable Madam Justice Newbury, and The Honourable Mr. Justice Hinkson — wrote …
[1] Elected officials must avoid conflicts of interest. The question on appeal is whether the respondents were in a conflict when they voted to award two service contracts to societies of which they were directors. In the words of s. 101(1) of the Community Charter, S.B.C. 2003, c. 26, did they have “a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter[s]”?
[5] The penalty for conflict is disqualification until the next election.
[6] I would allow the appeal and declare that the respondents violated the Community Charter.
CityHallWatch has published a backgrounder on the case, with a link to a Fulton and Company LLP three-page summary of Schlenker v. Torgrimson.
Arising from an at-length conversation VanRamblings had with the learned Mr. Baker, a determination was made that it may very well be that Schlenker v. Torgrimson could be the determining case law that, upon adjudication and a ruling on the matter before a Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, could result in an order of the Court that would prevent Vision Vancouver City Councillors who are elected in the next term from seeking a further term of elected office, in 2018.
Mr. Baker offers this précis of Schlenker v. Torgrimson …
The Court of Appeal said direct or indirect pecuniary interest doesn’t just refer to money, that a politician has a fiduciary duty to the Council on which they sit as a member, without built-in bias.
The bias that arises from a member of Council serving two masters is, in Schlenker v. Torgrimson, one, perfectly benign in relation to the environmental group of which he is a member, and his duty to his taxpayers, which loyalties are divided and in conflict.
The Justices held that it was important the Court come down with a decision. Paragraph 34 of the Judgment reads, “to prevent elected officials from having divided loyalties” in deciding how to spend the public’s money, one’s own financial advantage can be such a powerful motive, that putting the public interest second leads to a conflict. The Court must then rule that the Council member could not run for a succeeding term of office.
The benefit — or direct or indirect pecuniary interest — potentially derived by Mr. Meggs, and Vision Vancouver City Councillors, would be the monies received in compensation for duties performed as an elected official.
A direct conflict link, and a decided conflict of interest by Vision Vancouver, might be made — involving the receipt of monies from CUPE 1004 in exchange for favours or benefit, the commitment made to CUPE 1004 by Geoff Meggs on behalf of Vision Vancouver that there would “no contracting out”, this commitment to members of CUPE 1004 made in advance of the bargaining of the upcoming December 2015 collective agreement, and payment in the form of monies paid by taxpayers to elected officials, in this case the Vision Vancouver members of Vancouver City Council.
As per Bob Mackin’s article in the Vancouver Courier, the CUPE 1004 local donated $102,000 to the Vision Vancouver re-election campaign, as was made explicit, in exchange for a commitment by Vision Vancouver not to contract out the jobs of city workers.
The Criminal Code of Canada, Section 123, reads …
Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years who directly or indirectly gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to a municipal official or to anyone for the benefit of a municipal official — or, being a municipal official, directly or indirectly demands, accepts or offers or agrees to accept from any person for themselves or another person — a loan, reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for the official.”
Mr. Baker suggested to VanRamblings that in the case of CUPE 1004’s commitment to the payment of monies to Vision Vancouver — the details of which are explicated in an October 16, 2014 Bob Mackin article in the Vancouver Courier — the circumstance is worse, as in …
“We’re going to give you money. There are strings attached. And they respond, ‘Yeah, we know.’ So, it looks like you have a contract, which is a horrible breach of their fiduciary duty to those citizens who elected them to office, and the populace of the city, in general.”
Section 38 of Schlenker v. Torgrimson was, in part, based on the Ontario Divisional Court ruling in Re Moll and Fisher, which reads …
This enactment, like all conflict-of-interest rules, is based on the moral principle, long embodied in our jurisprudence, that no man can serve two masters. It recognizes the fact that the judgment of even the most well-meaning men and women may be impaired when their personal financial interests are affected. Public office is a trust conferred by public authority for public purpose. And the Act … enjoins holders of public offices … from any participation in matters in which their economic self-interest may be in conflict with their public duty. The public’s confidence in its elected representatives demands no less.
Given all of the above, VanRamblings has now come to believe that Kirk LaPointe was right when he wrote in his opinion piece in The Province …
Vision Coun. Geoff Meggs, speaking for Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson, recently told a meeting of CUPE Local 1004 that the mayor was committing to not contract out any other city jobs. In turn, Vision was given financial and political support. No wonder Vancouverites don’t trust city hall under Vision. Corruption corrodes confidence and this commitment smacks of political backroom deals of yesteryear.
It puts Vision’s interests ahead of the city’s and taxpayers.
Being clearly beholden to the city’s workers right now is an irresponsible service to the city. The union is approaching contract discussions, and any early definition of the city’s bargaining position is a breach of fiduciary duty.
–
Once again, as happens on occasion, VanRamblings finds itself in the position of having to offer a mea culpa to an aggrieved party, in this case Non-Partisan Association candidate for Mayor, Mr. Kirk LaPointe.
We apologize, unreservedly, to you Mr. LaPointe. You were right, you are right. In fact, VanRamblings has now come to believe that the actions of Councillor Meggs represent, as you write, “an irresponsible service to the city”, and that the verbal contract agreed to by Councillor Meggs, on behalf of the Vision Vancouver municipal political party of which he is a member, may and perhaps does, in fact, represent a breach of his fiduciary duty to the electorate, such matter yet to be officially determined in a court of law.
Decision 2014: Why Ray Tomlin Blogs on Vancouver’s Civic Scene
Approximately one week ago, Vancouver Magazine columnist Frances Bula casually asked me why I was covering Vancouver’s civic election scene on VanRamblings — stating that, “I don’t recall you doing that much before.”
Now, Frances’ query was framed as a simple question — she was curious, and given that we’d been corresponding, and I turned up at the NPA breakfast meeting with Kirk LaPointe on July 14th (unusual for me), the question seems a valid one, and deserving of a reply. Because the question Frances poses is a question that has been asked of me by many (not the least of whom was COPE’s Sarah Beuhler), I’ll use this forum to respond.
The primary reason VanRamblings revived itself on June 15th to commence in-depth coverage of the current civic election cycle was to create an alternative narrative to the one most often expressed by Vision Vancouver.
On VanRamblings, I want to hold Vision Vancouver to account for their decision-making, practice and conduct over the course of the past almost six years, and to remind VanRamblings’ approximately 17,000 weekly readers of Vision Vancouver’s position on a number of issues: development, community consultation, the arts, parks as well as green and environmental issues, affordable housing, and transit — and of how what Vision Vancouver says (or said in the past), and what Vancouver’s majority municipal party actually does in practice are often two very different things.
As I’ve also written on VanRamblings many, many times before, I believe Vision Vancouver to be the worst municipal government that Vancouver has had since the hoary days of Tom ‘Terrific’ Campbell — and, what I’ve set about to do on VanRamblings is back up that contention with dogged research, and the regular breaking of stories on this blog, commencing with intensive coverage of Vancouver’s civic scene some eight weeks ago.
Now, to the second part of Frances’ query (before returning to a continuing answer of the initial question): while it is true that VanRamblings has not had a history, over the past decade, of providing intensive coverage of the civic scene, as the last PoliSci / Anthropology / Sociology graduate from Simon Fraser’s old PSA department, I can tell you that my interest in the art of politics captured me whole in the early days of my young adulthood.
At Simon Fraser University, where I undertook two undergraduate degrees throughout the 1970s, I developed an overweening interest in politics that was honed and academically informed through the guidance of professors and activists of political conscience. I was privileged to continue a process of a refining of my political understanding as I undertook a Master’s degree in Policy Administration, again at Simon Fraser University, in the early 1980s.
The allure of politics, and of democratic engagement and empowerment dates back even earlier, to the first part of the 1960s when I marched with my father on postal workers’ picket lines, on strike after strike after strike.
As I’ve written previously, I worked on my first political campaign in 1963, volunteering on NDP MP Harold Winch’s Vancouver East campaign for re-election to federal office, and from those days until now, the allure of politics and democratic engagement has held a pull and a fascination for me, as part of a lifelong endeavour that has consumed me, as a good portion of my life has continued in dedication to building a fairer, more just and truly democratic society, an interest that sustains me until this day.
In additional answer to the query, although I’ve not covered civic politics to distraction on VanRamblings (I’ll explain why in a moment), I have consistently covered the federal and provincial political electoral scene: for instance, in my Decision Canada coverage of federal elections, and last year’s intensive Decision BC 2013 coverage of our BC provincial election.
As to why I turned up at the NPA breakfast meeting with Kirk LaPointe, or attend press conferences for the other municipal political parties? I’ve asked to be placed on the press contact list, and the various civic parties have kindly acceded to my request. I’m retired, I’ve got the time, I have the interest, and I have the forum — VanRamblings — to publish. Yes, we live in a new and different age. We now have citizen journalism on the web!
While it is true that there’s not been all that much coverage of civic issues, on a regular basis, on VanRamblings, and certainly not intensive coverage of Vancouver’s civic scene, there’s good reason for that …
During the course of the 2005 election, I was a member of Vancouver’s Board of Variance. Given that the BoV is an independent, quasi-judicial body, I believed that it would have been unseemly for me to pronounce publically on civic election affairs — which doesn’t mean that I, and other members of the Board of Variance on which I sat, didn’t stump for and support civic parties running in the 2005 election; rather, it was that such engagement was quieter, and reflective of the position of trust we held as members of the Board.
During the course of the 2008 and 2011 Vancouver civic elections, I worked as a co-campaign manager on Tim Louis’ campaign for office, designed, created and posted to his campaign website, and worked assiduously on the COPE campaign, as a whole, to elect members to Vancouver City Council, Park Board and School Board.
In 2008, given that I had a relationship of some longstanding with Aaron Jasper, I worked as a campaign organizer on the Vision-COPE Park Board slate (both at the request of COPE, and at Aaron’s request, and with the support of Vision). Throughout both campaigns, I was busy working on Tim’s / COPE’s campaign for office, as well as engaging in grassroots campaigning, going door-to-door campaigning for COPE.
So, as you see, my interest in civic politics was always present — I have chosen in 2014 to direct that involvement in the life of our society, online.
Back to the implicit question contained in Frances’ initial query: why you, Raymond, why now — and, perhaps, how is your voice a valid one?
The answer is simple: although I have not previously acted as a journalist covering Vancouver’s civic electoral scene, I believe I am in a unique position to cover the 2014 Vancouver municipal election: which is to say, I have a personal relationship with, and have had a personal relationship, with almost every civic politico in town, dating back a decade and much longer.
For instance, for a year-and-a-half, commencing in early 2012 through until the autumn of last year, one Sunday every month, I met with a group of progressives in COPE to help develop a framework for COPE policy — as such I was “inside” the process of decision-making for one of Vancouver’s four main political parties. During that time I was afforded the opportunity to get to know Tristan Markle, Stuart Parker, Kim Hearty, and the nine others who sat around Dr. Penny Parry and Tim’s Louis’ dining room table.
I also worked closely with COPE Executive Director Sean Antrim, and was very much involved in various aspects of the COPE planning process.
Given my gregarious and curious nature (and much to the chagrin of my COPE colleagues), I have also come to develop a close rapport, verging on friendship, with a number of folks involved in the Non-Partisan Association.
For instance, for the past year and a half, I have met once a month with current NPA Council candidate Rob McDowell (one of my very favourite politicos in town, and my favourite of the NPA candidates for Council). As the Park Board watchdog (so named by The Courier’s Sandra Thomas), in addition to speaking regularly with the Vision Vancouver Commissioners on Park Board — Chair, Aaron Jasper, Constance Barnes, Niki Sharma, Sarah Blyth and Trevor (each of whom I both like very much, and for whom I have much respect and admiration) — I have also had the privilege of speaking and meeting with the two NPA Park Board Commissioners, John Coupar and Melissa DeGenova. I like, admire & respect both John & Melissa, very much.
If I am over the moon about Rob McDowell (and I am), my regard for current NPA Board of Education candidate Christopher Richardson knows no bounds — he’s not just one of the finest politicos I’ve ever met, Christopher is one of the best people I’ve ever met, period; it is a privilege to have the opportunity to speak with both Rob and Christopher.
In addition to Rob McDowell and Christopher Richardson, I’ve come to hold NPA Board of Education candidate Sandy Sharma, and NPA Park Board candidate Erin Shum in the highest personal regard. My admiration for NPA Council candidate Ian Robertson also knows no bounds — I think he’s the smartest politico in town. I’ve also become more familiar with NPA Councillor George Affleck, and have long known NPA Councillor Elizabeth Ball, dating back to the days when I was the de facto arts and entertainment editor for a number of community newspapers, and regularly met with Elizabeth, in her capacity as Managing Director of Granville Island’s Carousel Theatre.
That I believe that each of these candidates for the Non-Partisan Association to be principled, honest and humble, and deserving of the public’s support at the polls should be considered a given — truth to tell, though, these are early days, and I have not as yet determined the list of candidates I will endorse in the final week of the current civic election cycle.
For Council, I can tell you that COPE’s Sid Chow Tan and Tim Louis will be on my final endorsement list, as will the Vancouver Cedar Party’s Nicholas Chernen. Clearly, the NPA’s Rob McDowell and Ian Robertson are at the top of my list for Vancouver’s natural governing party.
At this point, I can’t imagine not endorsing Vision Vancouver’s Andrea Reimer and Niki Sharma (tough, incredibly bright, principled women) — regardless of my somewhat untoward coverage of Vancouver’s majority party at City Hall. And, of course, current Green Party City Councillor Adriane Carr, and her running mate, Pete Fry (about whom I feel as equally strongly as I do Tim Louis, Rob McDowell, Ian Robertson, Sid Chow Tan and Nicholas Chernen) will likely be on my final endorsement list.
Still, as I say, it’s early days — the final civic election candidate endorsement list is three months away from publication date.
All of the above is by way of saying, I believe that the perspective I offer on Vancouver’s civic scene to be fetchingly humane and idiosyncratic, as well as informed to a degree unusual among those who cover the civic scene.
Given my relationship of long duration with politicos from across the political spectrum, and based as well on my work with many of Vancouver’s most activist politicos, I have most certainly developed a more intimate rapport than most reporters would allow to be the case, all of which provides me with a unique insight into the character of those who are running for office, and those mounting and backing the various municipal political campaigns.
As such, VanRamblings can, and will, offer a warmly idiosyncratic (and we hope, as well, often amusing) take on the civic scene, in the days, weeks and months leading up to the November 15th municipal election.
An aside, if I might, on two issues concerning VanRamblings …
Humour. You’ll notice above that I employ the phrase “natural governing party” to describe the Non-Partisan Association. Allow me to point out that use of such phrase does not constitute an endorsement of the NPA, nor is it meant to suggest in any way, shape or form that I am “in the tank” for the NPA — I am simply having a little fun (mostly at the expense of some of the folks in COPE, it would seem, although that was never my intention). Readers should know, as well, that I have fun with the headlines / titles of the various articles: surely, having read VanRamblings for awhile now, you must know that I indulge my penchant for hyperbole at almost every opportunity that is afforded; sometimes after I’ve finished writing a column, and read it back to myself, I laugh out loud at how outrageous and over-the-top my “seeming endorsement” of a candidate would be to the casual reader. That a good many of my readers read some of my writing as amusing (as is intended) is heartening for me; that the converse is also true is, well, unsettling for me — doesn’t mean I’m going to stop from composing headlines that, as I wrote a couple of days back, are designed to “engage, enrage and misdirect (challenging the reader to actually read through the commentary below the ‘meant to outrage’ title).”
Pejorative attack: Although I believe that the politics of personal destruction is the modus operandi for both Vision Vancouver and Stephen Harper’s federal Tories (an electoral strategy that has proved successful for both political parties, thus far), on VanRamblings you will never read an attack on someone’s character. Ever. There’s no one on Vancouver’s civic scene that I dislike (I have some personal favourites, and some quite not-so-favourites) — I am admiring of those who are engaged in the civic political scene, & in service of the public interest.
Yes, it is true that I’ve had some fun at the expense of Vision Vancouver’s campaign team, but let me tell you that not for one moment do I ever forget that a person I am writing about is someone’s son, daughter, husband, wife, companion, beloved uncle or aunt, someone’s father or mother, brother or sister, or cherished friend.
I do not, and will not, deny someone’s humanity.
When I write about the Mayor’s Chief of Staff, Mike Magee, I do not forget who he is as a man, as a husband and a father and a friend, in addition to his work as a politico of stature and much accomplishment. You will never see me going after someone personally on the VanRamblings blog — sure, I’ll take Vision Vancouver to task, but you will never read personal invective or ad hominem personal attack on this website.
Today’s post constitutes only the first part of my answer to the question posed by Frances; there’s more that I have to say — but not today.
This is my pre-birthday week. This coming Monday, August 11th, is my — as a neighbour suggested to me — ”Beatles birthday”. I will be 64.
I may have one more post before, or on (or after) my birthday (nothing political), after which time I’ll take a break from VanRamblings for one week, before commencing with posting once again on Vancouver’s civic scene. I look forward to your return on Monday, August 18th, for VanRamblings’ continuing coverage of the upcoming 2014 Vancouver municipal election.