Review of the January 25, 2012 regular board meeting
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.
January 29th, 2012 at 9:16 am
I find some of your comments interesting, and somewhat misleading. For example:
1. You state that any Commissioner could have made a motion to go in-camera. I notice that you did not make this motion, so you obviously felt comfortable “airing this dirty laundry” in public. I support this as it needed to be exposed. Given what these emails have revealed about the CAO’s managemnt style, I think the public was well served in having this aired. The CAO, as “meeting procedure expert” could have pointed out this in-camera option to the Board – but chose not to.
2. You say that you are thankful that the motion was not seconded, but you don’t say why you are thankful. If your rationale is, this topic is best discussed in-camera, then I agree with you. But if you feel it is appropriate for Staff to publicly criticize Commissioners, then I strongly disagree with you.
3. You find it “odd” that Chair McCrea had his own tape recorder. I can’t comment for Chair McCrea, but if I was a Commissioner there are several possible reasons why I would want my own recordings, including:
A. It would save time from taking notes, so I could focus on the business at hand
B. I would want independent confirmation to check against the written minutes. We all know that on many occasions the minutes are not accurate. I have personally been misquoted more times than I can count and even when I point out these errors to Staff prior to the meeting, most times corrections are not made and the minutes are adopted with the errors included. Former Commissioner Woodrow has pointed out numerous times that he has been misquoted as well, yet the minutes get approved without correction. Given the track record of errors in the minutes, I must commend Chair McCrea for keeping his own records of what was said.
This comment of yours could be interpreted as you taking a “shot” at Chair McCrea and this also happened in your BLOG post re the Jan. 11 meeting. While this may not have been your intent, it certainly can undermine the credibility of the Board.
4. The high resolution video is a great idea and I may pursue this – thanks for the tip.
January 29th, 2012 at 12:26 pm
Thanks for the update, much appreciated. The board should not allow the tape recorder as it is intimidation and bullying. As for the video, why is it Shaw does not attend and broadcast the board meetings?
January 29th, 2012 at 12:47 pm
Hi Rick,
I find most of your comments interesting but highly misleading. You are always twisting facts around in the most creative interpretive manner that you should open up a dance hall. Believe it or not, I can pick away MORE at your comments than I have here, but I will restrain myself.
1a. You wrote “Given what these emails have revealed about the CAO’s managemnt style” – You are inferring that there was something bad about this emails. There wasn’t.
1b. You wrote “The CAO, as “meeting procedure expert” could have pointed out this in-camera option to the Board – but chose not to.”. This is WRONG. It is up to the chair to guide the course of business through the meeting. The CAO’s decision was to put the item on the public side of the agenda item. If the chair went to the CAO and asked “Can we go in camera?” then the CAO would answer “Yes, you will need a motion to do so”.
2. About the motion with no seconders, it implicitly pre-supposes that the staff did something to attack commissioners in the first place. All our staff was doing is telling commissioners what they can’t do, mainly trying to make a “problem go away” at a certain leaseholder’s place.
3a. Can’t trust the staff to take minutes? Wonderful statement. You stated, “We all know that on many occasions the minutes are not accurate.”, and this is patently untrue. The board agrees to adopt the minutes. They are our official record. You keep your own parallel record on your email distribution list, which contains your misleading version of reality.
3b. You stated “This comment of yours could be interpreted as you taking a “shot” at Chair McCrea and this also happened in your BLOG post re the Jan. 11 meeting. While this may not have been your intent, it certainly can undermine the credibility of the Board.” and this is a perfect illustration of your weasel words Rick. Specifically your usage of conditional vocabulary such as “could be”, “interpreted”, “may have not been your intent”, “it certainly can”, etc.
Are you so insecure with your opinions that you can’t straight say out, “Sacha, you are attacking McCrea and it makes me angry?”
I find it laughable that you would take my comment about Bob bringing a tape recorder to the meeting to be “an undermining [of] the credibility of the board”. Just hilarious, Rick.
I said I found it odd he brought a tape recorder. That’s all. You always choose the most sinister interpretations, again, a reason why I find reading you interesting but highly misleading.
4. The City of Chilliwack I think has a good system. I wouldn’t spend any money ourselves for this, and it would cost money. There are higher priority items where we can spend staff time and resources on at the moment than counting breath mint consumption.
January 29th, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Arlene,
I’m guessing cost considerations would be the strongest factor. There is likely a minimum population size threshold before Shaw (or any media!) gets “interested”.
January 29th, 2012 at 2:51 pm
Re: Sacha Peter’s comment “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.” The childish comment re: counting of the breath mints is inappropriate behavior for a board member. The use of sarcasm in this way illustrates another example of the “dysfunction” within the board that you so aptly described in the Progress as embarrassing.
January 29th, 2012 at 4:17 pm
I wholeheartedly concur with Ms. Lister’s comments.
January 29th, 2012 at 5:42 pm
Thank you Sue. I will be sure to sterilize my childish writings in the future and write nothing but propoganda and adult comments on my own personal website.
I also take great comfort that Rick Williamson agreed with what you wrote on his own email blast to subscribers, but disagreed with you in his comments here.
January 30th, 2012 at 2:06 pm
Sacha, let’s just say that we look at things very differently. It is obvious that your interpretation of what the facts are is very different from mine, and that your interpretation of what is proper procedure is very different from mine. This is likely why you have the reputation that you do in the Cultus community and why I have the reputation that I have in the Cultus Community. I’m OK with my reputation and as long as Canada remains a free and democratic country I will continue to exercise the right to voice my opinions regarding the CLPB’s management of the park as I see fit, regardless of any names you or anyone else choose to call me.