Sacha Peter

There were 5 commissioners present this meeting; Commissioners Payeur and Toews were away.

The following is some colour on the thoughts I had regarding select board business of the day:

1. The vote for chair commenced again. Commissioner Shanks nominated Commissioner McCrea. Commissioner Skonberg nominated myself. I declined the nomination, and Commissioner McCrea was elected chair.

The chairman does have certain privileges, including structuring committees, and being an interface between the board and staff, guiding the actual meetings of the board, and the spokesperson for the board. The chair does make about $3,000 a year more in compensation for this work, which I can judge after my own experience is a correctly priced premium. Other than that, he/she is a single vote in proceedings just like the rest of the commissioners.

After the debacles in the inaugural two meetings, hopefully the board will move forward.

2. The vote for vice-chair went with myself nominating Commissioner Skonberg. Chair McCrea nominated Commissioner Shanks. There was a vote and Commissioner Skonberg was elected as vice-chair.

In the past year, Owen was great to rely on, and also did a great job chairing the standing committee on bylaw and policy review’s work concerning the upcoming Good Neighbour Bylaw.

3. The board approved an outlay of $12,000 to the Cultus Lake Aquatic Stewardship Strategy (CLASS), under the condition that they received matching funds under the Habitat Stewardship Program. I made an amendment to the original motion, which was carried by the rest of the board, that the funding also be contingent on us receiving a report outlining the results of the milfoil survey and also the technical conference – both of which we were told the funding would be used for. This is a basic measure of accountability for CLASS which will ensure that we get some value for hard-earned public funds.

4. There was a bit of dirty laundry aired out with respect to relations between staff and certain commissioners, some emails of which were in the agenda package. After making a statement, the chair asked for a motion that Commissioner Shanks made which stated that staff are not to make negative remarks about commissioners in the open, but thankfully it received no seconders.

I will also point out that at any time a motion to go in-camera could have been made by any commissioners, but was not done.

What happened is described in the December 22, 2011 email contained in the agenda package. Summarizing it roughly, after getting elected, Commissioners McCrea, Shanks and Payeur went to the board office to try to get a staff decision on a building matter overturned. This in itself is a huge overstepping of authority – individually, commissioners have no power, but collectively the board expresses its wishes through making resolutions. The proper procedure is to bring it up to the board as an agenda item, and have the board make the appropriate resolution to investigate and report. Once the entire board is apprised of the situation can they then make the appropriate motion to direct staff to “make it go away” or confirm the original decision.

If the matter was urgent, the chair or two commissioners can call a special meeting with two days of notice.

So far, this item has never been brought up as an agenda item. I personally only found out about this by reading some emails that were forwarded to me while I was still in Thailand and I was shaking my head overseas when reading them at this huge breach of procedure. I realize the new commissioners are eager to “get to business”, but in this case they were too overly enthusiastic.

I believe these types of actions are the root cause of the existing acrimony between staff and commissioners, which can hopefully be corrected once there is a better understanding of the role of commissioners and the board vs. staff. This is something our new chairman should be able to instill and this will breed a better relationship between board and staff.

5. I reported on my first “junket” ever paid for by public money to Kelowna, BC for the local government leadership academy (LGLA), which was a three-day training conference on all issues relating to local government, governance and administration. You can view their one page brief by clicking here, and also an agenda by clicking here. Some material I learned from experience in the previous term, some material was new, and there were some provocative presentations.

This is the first term in the history of the park board where commissioners actually received formal training – parliamentarian Eli Mina was brought in December for the new commissioners and staff to talk about parliamentary procedure. I wasn’t around then, so I was sent to the next best option.

6. I found it odd that the chair Bob McCrea brought his own tape recorder to the meeting. Our executive assistant at every meeting has one. I am waiting for somebody to bring in high-resolution video so people can then count how many breath mints I consume in a meeting.

This was the first meeting that I attended that had the newly elected board. Six commissioners were present, with Commissioner Toews absent.

During the December meeting (which I was out in Asia at the time), there were six commissioners and they could not decide on who the chair and vice-chair as the votes were deadlocked 3 to 3 (Commissioner McCrea and Commissioner Skonberg were nominated for chair). They eventually agreed to draw a random name out of a hat and that commissioner would be the temporary chair for the evening’s proceedings. It was a rather unique way of proceeding, but it at least allowed the board to get on with the business that was before it.

In the January 11th proceedings, there was again a 3-3 vote for chair (Commissioner McCrea and myself were nominated). Seeing that this result would not change if there were subsequent votes, I moved a motion identical to the one that was carried in the December meeting; to draw a random name out of a hat for a temporary chair for the evening. The reason was simple: the board had business before it that needed attending – this is one of our primary functions as commissioners. This motion was defeated 3-3 (McCrea, Payeur and Shanks voted against).

We went to a second vote for chair. This again was tied 3-3. I made the same motion as I did previously to draw a temporary chair out of a hat, with the same result (3-3 against; McCrea, Payeur and Shanks against). McCrea moved a motion that the (permanent) chair be decided by coin toss, and this was defeated 3-3 (Hall, Skonberg and myself against) for the simple reason that the board and not a coin toss should decide its chair and vice-chair. McCrea also moved a motion that the CAO chair the proceedings of the board business and then we will subsequently vote on chair and vice-chair. I don’t believe this actually got to a vote for obvious reasons – accepting this motion would be like having the Mayor of Chilliwack give up the reigns in council chamber to the Chief Administrative Officer!

There was yet another vote for chair and vice-chair, with the same result (3-3) and finally the board agreed that the vote for chair and vice-chair be moved to the end of the agenda, and a temporary chair for the evening be selected at random. The whole board agreed to this (finally!) and Commissioners Hall, Payeur and Shanks oped out of the temporary chair vote. Commissioner McCrea‘s name was selected from the hat and he was chair for the day.

This charade took half an hour before we got to our first item of real board business.

After the regular part of the meeting and the in-camera session, the board once again considered the matter of the vote for chair and vice-chair. This was around 10:40 in the evening. The vote was deadlocked again, 3-3.

Commissioner Hall made a motion that the vote for chair and vice-chair be moved to the next board meeting. This was subsequently defeated 3-3 (with McCrea, Payeur and Shanks against).

I moved that the board recess for a couple minutes and this was carried by the whole board. During the recess, Commissioners Skonberg, Hall and myself left the meeting at around 10:45pm and went home. While I do not know the rest of the story, I am guessing the meeting had to be adjourned (as four commissioners are required for quorum per our bylaws).

I am guessing that Commissioners McCrea, Payeur and Shanks wanted to keep voting until we ran out of paper, but at a certain point the plug needed to be pulled.

I hope this is not a sign of the future; we were elected to make the park a better place instead of playing petty games. It is not good for the community, the stakeholders of the park, the staff, or anybody except perhaps Paul Henderson of the Chilliwack Times, who I noticed was in the gallery and will have plenty to write about from the dysfunction he witnessed.

Because of my vacation at the end of last year, I was sworn in on January 4, 2012 – the legislation requires elected people to take the oath of office within 45 days of the final declaration of election results – the deadline was January 6, 2012.

I notice that the FVRD has a draft copy of their Area E OCP update (everywhere except Cultus Lake Park) and you can get a copy of it from their website.