Tag Archives: vancouver park board

#VanPoli | Code of Conduct | Elected Office | Trust, Grace, Duty & Deportment

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Politics, Vancouver Votes 2022, ,

A Code of Conduct is a set of rules around behaviour and comportment that serves to define, in the instance today, the political arena of municipal governance and the culture of the institution, that seeks to clarify the core values and principles on display at City Hall, the Code of Conduct setting out to define the expected conduct of elected officials, staff, and all those citizens who present to City Council.

Having a Code of Conduct provides elected officials, city staff, and citizens a structure to follow, reducing the potential for untoward conduct when issues of contention arise, in order that there should be no ambiguity when it comes to Code of Conduct expectations, should lines of conduct be blurred, or rules broken.

As such, a municipal Code of Conduct sets the benchmarks for behaviour at City Hall — and in Vancouver’s case, Park Board — for all those who are involved in civic governance, elected officials, staff, and citizens, a guideline set for all to live up to.

During the final term of governance for the Vision Vancouver administration at City Hall, public demonstrations became a common feature, with — on several occasions, increasing frequency and deliberate intent — members of the rightfully aggrieved public taking over Council Chambers at Vancouver City Hall, ejecting the Mayor and City Councillors, and senior members of city staff from the Chambers.

Meanwhile, over at Vancouver Park Board — the only one of its kind on the continent —  avid follower of all things Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation, the late Eleanor Hadley, who attended each and every meeting of Park Board, was calling out the Park Board Commissioners, and on this particular late autumn evening in 2015, the Vision Vancouver Park Board Committee Chairperson, Sarah Blyth.

Whether it was the late Jamie Lee Hamilton — the self-styled Queen of the Parks — or Ms. Hadley, repeatedly and often throughout the conduct of Park Board meetings, both would call out the Commissioners, the stewards of Vancouver’s parks and recreation system, while they were conducting Park Board business.

At Vancouver City Hall, Park Board General Manager Malcolm Bromley met with Vancouver City Manager Sadhu Johnston, with the two senior staff deciding that the drafting of a Code of Conduct was in order. In late 2016, the Park Board was the first civic body to adopt an official — and strictly enforced —  Code of Conduct.

Mr. Johnston spoke with the then Vision Vancouver Mayor, Gregor Robertson, about Council adopting their own Code of Conduct, but the idea was put off. Only when a new Council was elected in late 2018, did City Manager Sadhu Johnston once again raise the spectre of the adoption of a Code of Conduct at Vancouver City Hall, an idea newly-elected Mayor Kennedy Stewart went on to champion.

Here’s a bit of background on the adoption of a Code of Conduct at City Hall.

“In response to a Council resolution in late 2019 that asked City staff to review and update the City’s code of conduct, staff undertook an analysis of the current code.

Based on this review, staff identified shortcomings in the current Code of Conduct and recommended that a new code of conduct be drafted for Council and Advisory Committees, separate from the code of conduct that applies to City staff.

In response to legislation enacted in the Provinces, municipalities across Canada have recently enacted or revised their Codes of Conduct and retained independent ethics advisors. British Columbia does not have any requirements for a municipal Code of Conduct, or the implementation of an Integrity Commissioner.”

Arising from the fact that Vancouverites elected an almost wholly novice Council, who took a long while to get their feet underneath them, and arising from a packed Vancouver City Council agenda that invariably proved contentious and was frought with hours long amendments to amendments to amendments, and the subsequent onslaught of the COVID-19 pandemic, it took two full years for Vancouver City Council to adopt a new and much revised Code of Conduct.

On January 21, 2021, Council adopted a new and revised Conduct of Conduct.

Vancouver City Hall and That Damnable Code of Conduct

When on October 30, 2017, Green Party of Vancouver Board of Education trustee Janet Fraser was elected by her fellow trustees as Vancouver School Board Chairperson, Dr. Fraser set out as her …

“First priority is to build the culture of respect and then we must address the teacher recruitment and retention challenges that we’re seeing here in Vancouver. There are challenges across the province, but I think they’re particularly acute in Vancouver as we have additional challenges with affordability and teachers leaving, choosing to leave to work in other districts.”

VanRamblings celebrated Dr. Fraser’s tenure as Board of Education Chair.

The next year, following the 2018 Vancouver municipal election, when Dr. Fraser’s Green Party colleague Adriane Carr was re-elected to a third term in office, and was appointed by Vancouver Mayor Kennedy Stewart as Chairperson of Council’s powerful Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities, Ms. Carr decided to take a page from Dr. Fraser’s ‘book’ on how to run a reasonable and respectful civic meeting.

In her newfound role as Chairperson of Council’s Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities, here’s how Vancouver City Councillor Adriane Carr set about to interpret Vancouver’s old, and then new, Vancouver City Hall Code of Conduct …

      • Vancouver City Councillors will treat each other with the utmost respect. A Vancouver City Councillor may not impugn, or be seen or heard to impugn, the integrity of a fellow Councillor, nor employ clever use of language, nor tone of voice, nor any other untoward mechanism of engagement that might be seen to bring disfavour to a member of Council. At all times in the Council Chambers, Councillors must interact with their fellow Councillors in an always respectful manner.
      • Failure to interact with one’s fellow Councillors in a manner consistent with ‘accepted norms’ of good governance, will see the imposition of sanctions on such member or members, ranging from the issuance of an order of an immediate apology to the aggrieved Councillor, to an ordered withdrawal from Chambers, and / or the laying of a formal Code of Conduct complaint against the offending Councillor.
      • No Councillor will ask a question of a staff person presenting to Council that would seem to hold the staff person in disrepute. Councillors must not, and will not, ever question staff information or data presented to Council. Should a Councillor present information and data contrary to the information and data presented by staff, that Councillor will be sanctioned by the Chair, have their microphone shut off, and be chastised by the Chair for engaging in untoward and unparliamentary conduct, or be ordered to withdraw forthwith from Council Chambers.
      • Citizens presenting to Council must observe the Code of Conduct as laid out for Councillors, and must not ever present information contrary to the information and data presented by staff. Citizen conduct must be respectful, whether addressing the City’s professional staff, or elected members of Council. Citizen failure to adhere to the Code of Conduct will result in the citizen’s address to Council being terminated, their microphone shut off, and their removal from the Council Chambers.
      • Note. Only the Mayor will be saved harmless from the above provisions of  Vancouver City Hall’s Code of Conduct.

      Thus this term of Vancouver City Council, none of the past entertainingly raucous engagements of Councillors with one another — Melissa De Genova or Andrea Reimer’s in-Council ‘attacks’ on one another that defined Vision Vancouver’s final term in office, nor COPE Councillor Harry Rankin’s cleverly infamous attacks on his Non-Partisan Association counterpart, George Puil, which was good-natured theatre of the first order, allowing both Councillors to make their respective points to maximum effect for public consumption and erudition — was countenanced.

      Instead at Vancouver City Council this term Vancouverites seem to have elected a mealy-mouthed, ‘go along to get along’ contingent of City Councillors who appear, for all the world, to be deep in the pockets of staff, who themselves — in some good measure — seem to be ‘in the pocket of’ or at least beholden to the developers who contribute hundreds of millions of dollars in Community Amenity Contributions to City Hall that, in effect, pays the salaries of senior City Hall staff.

      A couple of weeks ago, VanRamblings commented on Vancouver City Councillor Melissa De Genova, in a headlined column titled #VanPoli | Melissa De Genova | Fighting for You on Vancouver City Council, where we wrote …

      During the current term of office Councillor De Genova has transformed from a fighter into a pussy cat, a ‘can barely stand on her legs’ kitten.

      These past three years, what has happened to Vancouver resident champion and fighter for all that is right and good, challenger of her opposition colleagues, and ruthless yet still humane Council combatant, a woman who takes no truck nor holds any prisoners, the Melissa De Genova who calls out dissembling, self-righteous virtue signaling nonsense when one opposition Councillor or other makes a statement so ludicrous and offside that it all but demands a response from Vancouver’s warrior City Councillor.

      The answer, obviously, is quite clear: Councillor Adriane Carr’s and Mayor Kennedy Stewart’s anti-democratic interpretation of Vancouver’s damnable Code of Conduct, that serves at all times to limit debate at Council, the questioning of staff, and squelch many of the community voices who regularly present to City Council.

Aquatic Centre: Vision Vancouver Pulls a Fast One

#VanPoli Civic Politics, BC Politics, Decision 2014, Politics, Vancouver, , , , , , , , ,

Vancouver Aquatic Centre is Due for Demolition in Sale of City Land
The entire Downtown South Development Site booklet may be accessed by clicking here

On Wednesday, VanRamblings published a story on the proposed sale by Vision Vancouver of 12 parcels of land adjacent to the Granville Street bridge, for the development of 120 units of social housing, a new Aquatic Centre, and a new Qmunity Centre — all without any hint of an open, public consultation by Vancouver’s secretive, developer-friendly municipal Council.

In today’s VanRamblings column, we’ll provide a timeline of events about which we wrote on Wednesday, in which we sought clarification of the issues raised in yesterday’s harrowing Aquatic Centre To Be Demolished post.

Update: VanRamblings learned on Thursday of the City’s Request for Proposal to demolish the Continental Hotel, the RFP closing next Wednesday, August 6th.

Why the undue haste by the City in respect of the development of the 12 parcels of city-owned land being offered up?

Once the hotel has been demolished, the road is clear for the City to move quickly on their ‘non-market’ housing (always amorphous as to what that means, when it comes to Vision Vancouver) / Aquatic Centre development.

In addition, the pedestrian-and-cyclist-friendly Vision Vancouver dominated Council has designs on “renovating” the Granville Street bridge to make it more “active transportation” friendly.

All in due time.

The Vancouver Cedar Party issued a press release Thursday afternoon which asks questions on the issue of the replacement of the Vancouver Aquatic Centre, none of which have been answered to date by the majority party at City Hall, questions which MUST be answered by Vision Vancouver, if the public is to maintain any faith in their elected officials at Vancouver City Council and Park Board.

Also on Thursday, Vancouver Metro News weighed in with information on the proposed development, as did Frances Bula, at the Globe and Mail.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

Vancouver Park Board's John Coupar, Constance Barnes, Sarah Blyth, Malcolm Bromley
Park Board’s John Coupar, Constance Barnes, Sarah Blyth, and GM, Malcolm Bromley

First thing Wednesday morning, VanRamblings made contact with Vision Vancouver Park Board Commissioners Constance Barnes and Sarah Blyth to enquire as to whether each was aware of an “offering for sale” of city-owned land, that included a proposal for the demolition of the current Vancouver Aquatic Centre, and the construction of a new Aquatic Centre facility, on the north-end, and due east of the Granville Street bridge.

The short answer: no.

Commissioners Barnes and Blyth stated that a new or renewed Aquatic Centre was not on the immediate Park Board agenda for consideration.

Both were clear in stating that any proposal for a new / renewed Aquatic Centre would include a public consultation process. Both Commissioners Barnes and Blyth went on to state that consideration of a new / renewed Aquatic Centre was, in all likelihood, some years away.

VanRamblings also made contact with Non-Partisan Association Park Board Commissioner John Coupar, who told us that he’d look into the matter, and would report out to us following the NPA’s campaign announcement of their 2014 sterling slate of Park Board and Board of Education candidates.

Commissioner Coupar told us that he’d spoken with Vancouver Park Board General Manager Malcolm Bromley first thing on Wednesday morning, to seek clarification on issues related to VanRamblings’ Wednesday story respecting a new / renewed Aquatic Centre.

Here’s what Mr. Bromley told Commissioner Coupar: yes, the City Planning Department had approached him respecting a “wish list” for renewed Park Board facilities; Mr. Bromley suggested that a new Aquatic Centre might be high on the Park Board’s agenda for future consideration. Other than that, Commissioner Coupar concurred with the sentiment expressed by Commissioners Barnes and Blyth: there’d likely be no consideration given by Park Board, any time soon, to a remediated Vancouver Aquatic Centre, or a new aquatic facility.

Recent Park Board historical background respecting the Aquatic Centre: in fact, in 2012, Park Board Commissioners did confront an Aquatic Centre remediation proposal wherein Park Board was asked to approve a sum of monies to repair the centre’s heating facility, which structure had become eroded due to the salt content in the Aquatic Centre’s pools, in the early years of its operation.The Aquatic Centre now uses chlorinated water.

Remediation repair monies were approved by Park Board — and note was made by Park Board GM Malcolm Bromley that, perhaps at some future point, consideration might have to be given by Park Board to replacing the Aquatic Centre, should future remediation costs prove prohibitive.

Vancouver Cedar Party, Nicholas Chernen

In the late morning, and again in the mid-afternoon on Wednesday, VanRamblings met with Vancouver Cedar Party campaign chair Nicholas Chernen to discuss the Downtown South Development Site booklet — which was provided to us for our perusal — the cover of which is pictured at the top of today’s VanRamblings’ blog post, the booklet linked to above.

Mr. Chernen told VanRamblings he and his campaign staff ran across the document by accident, when perusing other files at City Hall.

Apparently, there was reference made to the document, but actual discovery of the Downtown South Development Site booklet took some while. When Mr. Chernen and his staff finally located the development booklet, a copy was provided to him — for which he had to sign out, recording all of his particulars.

Curious.

The first few pages of the booklet lay out the details of the obviously-developed-by Vision Vancouver ‘offer for sale’ of 12 parcels of city-owned land adjacent to the Granville Street bridge, which is to say …

  • The City of Vancouver is proceeding with the demolition of the old Continental Hotel building at 190 Granville Street, in 2014. Upon completion of the demolition, the property will be available for redevelopment in concert with the decommissioning and removal of the eastern Granville Bridge off ramp and ‘loop’, the removal of the Blacktop cabs yard, and the opening up for sale of an entire square block of city-owned land (part of the City’s Property Endowment Fund land legacy), for a sale price of $32.9 million;
  • The City, in offering the property for sale, is asking for “some innovative proposals for the delivery of key public benefits” for this area of the City, although offering cash or a combination of cash and amenities will also be considered.Among the amenities listed are “provision of 120 ‘turnkey’ non-market housing units”: 24 studio apartments (20%), 42 1-bedroom units (35%), 42 2-bedroom units (35%), and 12 3-bedroom units (10%);
  • The construction of a renewed Vancouver Aquatic Centre, with a 52-metre pool (no indication as to the number of lanes), a sauna, steam room and jacuzzi, plus gym, the new Aquatic centre situated in a landlocked location away from park land, green space and Burrard Inlet, offering little in the way of parking or ready transit access;
  • The delivery of a “community amenity in the form of built premises of approximately 10,000 square feet for … Qmunity, either on the property or on other land located in the West End;
  • A United We Can bottle depot.

More detail available on the CityHallWatch website, or by clicking on this link.

star.jpg star.jpg star.jpg

Is There Moral, Financial and Ethical Corruption at Vancouver City Hall?

All of the above leaves a few questions unanswered, including …

“Why would a developer purchase one square block of city-owned land upon which a 120-unit social housing unit is to be built, along with the construction of a new Aquatic Centre which upon completion the developer must turn over to the City of Vancouver for $10, a community centre to be built that would also be turned over to the City, and the construction of a bottle depot — none of which properties would turn a profit for a developer, or even offer a return (other than a social justice return) on the developer’s investment of $32.9 million.

Why would a developer, then, make such a sure-to-fail economically purchase of city-owned land, unless …

The City — which is to say, Vision Vancouver — had struck an under-the-table deal with the purchasing developer to acquire the stretch of beach front property along Beach Avenue where the current Aquatic Centre is located, stretching from Burrard Street along the waterfront, almost all the way to English Bay, prime development property where the ‘Granville Loop’ purchasing developer could turn a potential profit that could very well be in the hundreds of millions of dollars.

Who in the media, other than VanRamblings, is asking these questions?

Will the August 15th sale of the 12-parcel Downtown South Development Site one square, city-owned block factor into the conversation in the 2014 Vancouver municipal election race? Who out there, apart from the Vancouver Cedar Party, CityHallWatch, and VanRamblings are expressing concern about the secretive nature of the proposed sale of Property Endowment Fund land, and the possible implications of the sale vis-à-vis the future sale of the current Aquatic Centre, and the surrounding, lands?