In civic governance as practiced within the City of Vancouver, politics — you know, the kind of politics that have our electeds sniping at, belittling, attempting to one up, disliking verging on hatred, while actively engaged in disrespecting one another — remains the order of the day, less so at Vancouver School Board, but ever present at Council (or, now, during their safe socially distanced Webex online meetings), and around the Park Board table nestled within the Vancouver Park Board offices, or is now the case during our pandemic times, online using the city’s Webex online platform.
In the new year, VanRamblings will dedicate the early months of the year to writing about Vancouver civic governance (suffice to say, we’re not happy), and had intended to enjoy the season and leave for another day what will in all likelihood be an evisceration (such a nasty word) of governance in the city of Vancouver, as it is currently practiced, until the following arose …
Vancouver Park Board staff will bring the above recommendation to the Park Board table next Monday, December 7th, first in an in-camera online meeting not available to the public, and then at 6:30pm when the final online meeting of Park Board Commissioners — before the holiday break — will take place. The next Park Board meeting is set for January 18th, 2021.
According to a 31-page Vancouver Park Board staff report [PDF] …
The Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation Procedure By-law (Park Board Procedure By-law) guides how the business of the Park Board Commissioners is handled and applies to all meetings of the Board and its committees. While the current by-law underwent a comprehensive review in 2018 before being enacted by the Board January 2019, it is best practice to undertake regular administrative reviews to ensure procedures remain relevant.
The revisions outlined in this report, and attached as Appendix A, are proposed to reflect current practices, address gaps, and clarify procedures that may have led to some ambiguity or confusion. Additionally, recommendations have been included to provide Commissioners options to follow-up on the “Future Considerations noted in the last by-law update report regarding electronic and special meetings.
The net impact of the recommendation, when it becomes a motion before the Board this next Monday, as it surely will, would be to deny a minority contingent of duly elected Park Board members to call a Special Meeting of the Board to seek public input on issues of concern to the general populace.
In these parts, we call that bullying, rule of the majority, arrogant decision-making by elected officials, and - let’s face it - downright anti-democratic.
Vancouver Park Board Commissioners, l-r: Tricia Barker, John Coupar (NPA); Gwen Giesbrecht, John Irwin (COPE); Stuart Mackinnon, Camil Dumont, Dave Demers (Greens)
Apparently, the genesis for the staff recommendation arises from a Special Meeting of the Board that two Commissioners, John Coupar and Tricia Barker, called this past summer to discuss transportation issues within Stanley Park, with which members of the public had expressed concern.
As a general rule — be it at Council, School Board or Park Board — senior staff are reluctant, at best, to meet with the public to discuss issues of public concern, cuz it’s messy and democratic, and diminishes their power as the professionals who, in actuality, “run” city governance — not to mention which, these time consuming meetings can go on for days, and it takes them away from the familial comfort of their homey and cozy offices.
Park Board staff were none-too-pleased with the calling of the June 18, 2020 Special Meeting — thus, their recommendation to Commissioners. And, if truth be told, neither were COPE Commissioners Gwen Giesbrecht — who viscerally dislikes the rather lovable John Coupar — and John Irwin, and Green Party of Vancouver Park Board Commissioners, current Chairperson, Camil Dumont (also not much of a fan of his NPA Park Board colleagues, ditto his fellow Greens) — Dave Demers & Stuart Mackinnon.
Yes, it’s civic governance as a particularly bad high school experience.
Now, should the staff “recommendation” be accepted by a majority of the Board at this upcoming final 2020 meeting of Park Board, here’s what the net effect the passage of the motion would mean for governance at the Board, as well as the process to realize the intention of Park Board staff …
1. Going forward only the Park Board Chairperson, or a majority of Board members could call for a Special Meeting of the Board — a derivation of Board practice dating back to its inception more than a century ago;
2. Although there is a provision in the by-law and Park Board governance provisions that would allow a minority contingent of Park Board Commissioners to call a Special Meeting, to address urgent issues of concern to the public, such a motion could (and probably would) be tabled by the majority of the Board Commissioners, effectively making moot the urgent concern provisions of Park Board governance;
3. Assuming the “motion” passes, it would then be forwarded to Vancouver City Council for passage before Council (where such provisions as staff are recommending at Park Board are already in place). How would Council likely respond to the entreaty of Park Board to make application to the provincial government for a change to the Vancouver Charter to accommodate the expressed wishes of the current Park Board? VanRamblings believes the answer would be, contentiously not well;
4. For the sake of argument, let’s say Council says, “Okay you buckos at Park Board, we’ll grant you your Christmas wish, and post your recommended Charter change to our mistresses and masters in Victoria.” La-di-dah. How would British Columbia’s new Minister Responsible for Municipal Affairs, former Tofino Mayor, Josie Osborne, receive the entreaty of Council and Park Board for a change to the Vancouver Charter?
Uuummmm, not well?
One would think that our currently elected Park Board Commissioners would have many better things to do with their time than to seek to diminish democratic governance around the Park Board table, and diminish input from the public into decision-making by our elected Commissioners.
Apparently not.
Vancouver Park Board Commissioner John Coupar on his opposition to a motion to be presented at Park Board on December 7 2020 that would limit public input into decision-making at the Park Board table, and prevent minority members of the Board from calling for a Special Meeting of the Board when issues of public concern arise.
Note should be made that Park Board Chair Dumont determines what items find their way onto the Park Board agenda — as it happens, the Park Board Chair is all powerful. Nothing gets onto the agenda if he doesn’t want it to. So, apparently, Mr. Dumont is possessed of a strong desire to see this staff recommendation become a motion at the Park Board table, a motion he would vigorously support and urge his fellow Commissioners to support.
‘Ceptin one thing: at some point, it’s possible that Mr. Dumont and Mr. Demers would comprise a minority contingent of Green Party of Vancouver Park Board Commissioners on the elected Vancouver Park Board, the values of the remaining Park Board Commissioners in diametric opposition to that for which Mr. Dumont and Mr. Demers steadfastly stand.
Note to Park Board Chairperson Camil Dumont, and his fellow COPE and Green Party of Vancouver Park Board Commissioners: turn the the staff governance report into a motion of Park Board at next Monday’s meeting, and risk that at some point down the road, your very own power as a duly elected Park Board Commissioner will be much diminished.
A risky venture for our elected Park Board Commissioners, anti-democratic in design and intention, and very much contrary to the public interest.
