Frances Bula header image 2
← →

Robertson refuses mayoral debate with developer group over sponsorship and more

September 22nd, 2014 · 34 Comments

This letter from Mayor Gregor Robertson’s people, saying he won’t participate in the Oct. 7 UDI breakfast debate,  is going around in various circles.

They say the Urban Development Institute, which represents the region’s builders and developers, gave his office only two days to answer an invitation before putting out publicity suggesting the mayor hadn’t accepted, and they questioned having the debate sponsored by someone who has been out slagging the mayor.

I haven’t heard from the UDI their version on how this came about or whether they think their debate notice was offensive.

NOTE: I should add that the mayor’s people and the UDI have been on the outs for several years. The mayor’s office basically doesn’t respond to any invitations from the UDI and I know for a fact the mayor’s staff a long time ago decided they weren’t going to do the UDI any favours. I understand the UDI started inviting the mayor as of July 10 to come and, not debate, but present his main message along with other mayoral candidates. The only response came when the UDI put out preliminary information for a lunch meeting Sept. 18, at which point the mayor’s staff said it was his birthday. Then nothing more after that except for this letter when a new Oct. 7 date was announced.

By the way, as far as I’ve heard, Robertson has so far committed to three other debates and is in talks about dates/timing with three others at least. Many debate organizers seem to be including COPE’s Meena Wong in their line-up, judging from those she’s accepted so far. No word on whether organizers will now include Bob Kasting, the candidate of the very loosely affiliated parties and independents running as a kind of anti-developer-money-and-influence coalition.

The letter: RobertsonUDI

The UDI’s original info about the debate sent to members

Dear UDI Members:

With municipal elections approaching in mid-November, join us to hear from the candidates running for the top job in the City of Vancouver.

UDI recently invited the mayoral candidates for the three major parties (Vision Vancouver, NPA and COPE) to speak and so far, two have accepted.

UDI President Anne McMullin will moderate the discussion, posing relevant industry-related questions to NPA Candidate Kirk LaPointe and COPE Candidate Meena Wong.

What are their thoughts on affordability, transit, CACs and density? Take this opportunity to ask your questions as well!

 

The UDI’s debate info that’s on their website: http://udi.memberzone.com/events/details/udi-vancouver-breakfast-meet-the-candidates-94

 

Categories: 2014 Vancouver Civic Election

  • Paul

    These VV campaign management decisions are making it feel like it’s amateur hour at Vision (Trish Kelly, News conferences about old news, leaking Rob Macdonald’s email, the whole platform all about lobbying others to make decisions, lackluster social media presence….).

    What’s going on?
    Am I the only one sensing something is amiss?

  • F.H.Leghorn

    The Mayor does not do well in unscripted situations. He is, after all, like all politicians nothing more than a figurehead for wealthy behind-the-scenes interests.
    Strategically, Vision’s best hope is to drive turnout numbers as low as possible. Having Gregor stumble through complex answers to tough questions is likely to increase the desire to replace him with someone who can walk and chew gum at the same time.
    At the end of the day it’s all about the polling numbers, with a dash of campaign contributions.
    Flapping mayoral gums during the demolition of the squatter’s gardens on CP land won’t help. Neither will commiting to a tax increase to pay for it.
    So play the victim card. Claim that VV is being “bullied” by everyone, LaPointe, the corrupt Main Stream Media, paid NPA trolls, etc. Poor Gregor, still grieving a failed marriage despite the introduction of kale smoothies in the City Hall cafeteria. The sympathy vote. It’s working for Rob Ford and he’s on an operating table. Say, there’s an idea. When was Gregor’s last check-up?

  • jolson

    OK Leghorn you’re All Fowled Up with too much Feather Bluster.

  • Joe Just Joe

    Anyone care to share their thoughts on the fullpage ad CP placed in today’s paper. Obviously whoever wrote the piece for CP is pretty good at their job. Lets see if the city responds.

  • roger Kemble

    Wow Meena is a pretty girl.

    If I lived in town I’d vote for her . . .

  • boohoo

    Well this discussion is going about as expected.

  • Brilliant

    This must be the only case where Robertson doesn’t whore the city out to developers.

  • Everyman

    COPE made a shrewd move choosing Meena Wong, she may actually be more of a threat to Robertson than LaPointe, in that she could siphon off critically needed votes from people disillusioned with the pro-developer focus of both major parties.

  • Bill McCreery

    1) This is a cynical diversionary tactic by Vision Van and Robertson to try to paint the NPA as the only true developer beholden party. Sadly, the NPA set their own trap by MacDonald (read NPA) sponsoring an UDI (read developer) debate.

    2) As well, as the incumbent Robertson and the rest of the Vision Van vagabonds’ strategy is to stay as quite as they possibly can during the campaign. Their polling is no doubt telling them they are well ahead of the NPA, so why rock the boat?

  • boohoo

    I’m surprised no one is calling out the blatant sexism and misogyny above. Weird.

  • boohoo

    @11

    Sorry, given your track record it seemed par for the course.

  • chow

    Isn’t political punditry fun?!?!?!
    Mr. McCreery suggests that VV is staying quiet because they are ahead in the polls. And presumably are depending on their machine getting out their supporters.
    A few weeks ago on a panel on the CBC (I believe), on a panel in which Mme. Bula was a panelist, Charlie Smith of the Georgia Straight suggested that the NPA would run a quiet campaign without issues because their supporters (the nasty old white guys of the west side, you know, like Brillo pad) would still come out to vote while the younger VV demographic might stay home.
    In fact, that may be the strategy of both sides. We will have a better idea election night. What is interesting is that if one reads the local papers (such as they are), it is hard to tell that there is an election going on.

  • teririch

    @Everyman #8:

    I agree with you, COPE is well positioned to pull votes from Vision.

  • In Response

    “I agree with you, COPE is well positioned to pull votes from Vision.”

    Well certainly. It used to be said that Vision was “COPE lite” and it seems clear now the weight loss can be accounted for by the jettisoned ethics.

  • wet coaster

    You might be surprised Chow, VV has been using taxpayers money over the past 7 years cultivating support in a host of geoups, the CoV Literary Awards come to mind… They also mine every communication with the City and have contacts for all supporters.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    @IR: +1

  • Brilliant

    @wet coaster 15 – Oh I’m sure Chow is intimately aware of all Vision s little tricks.

  • Julia

    truth is, even if Vision lost in November, they have enough players on the inside on staff that it will take years to make it all go away.

  • spartikus

    So, in summary, Vision Vancouver has a direct line into every communication by every staffer (presumably electronic and paper) to inside and outside of City Hall and mines these for [some indeterminate reason] AND has contacts with all it’s supporters. Which one would think any political party would have. Unless you mean “contracts” – which is different. Unsupported by evidence, but different.

    Also/and, the City of Vancouver civil service has been infiltrated by Vision Vancouver activists, which will presumably allow them to monitor even more communications and have even more contacts or contracts with their supporters.

    Sort of like the NSA, but without all the supporting infrastructure or budget.

    Got it.

    Keep up the good work!

  • Bill Lee

    Well, Mr. Robertson is somewhat clumsy in talking on his feet.
    This is one reason that most reports come out as “Robertson said in a statement….” He can have an Aaron write his Mosaic words for him.

    If only we had Mark Hasiuk back writing those wonderful City Hall satires he did for the Vancouver Courier, “eavesdropping” on the office with Mike Magee and the G-Man.

    www2.canada.com/life/vancouver+elects+robertson+image/5740012/story.html?id=5740012

    http://www.vancourier.com/opinion/hidden-camera-captures-election-strategizing-in-mayor-robertson-s-office-1.376873#

    But then we might also be questioning the corporate Salmon Farmer spokesperson, chair of the land speculators’ Urban Development Institute (Vancouver edition, started in the heady days of oil boom in Edmonton) Anne Mcmullin.
    See corporate apologist and political lobbying career at: ca.linkedin.com/pub/anne-mcmullin/21/a9a/a73

  • sukitarps

    in a word Yes
    everything in and out of the hall, electronic and voice is monitored

    lost a friend at the desk next to me after he got called on the carpet for comments made in a supposedly confidential e-mail

  • Bill Lee

    Mike Howell writes [ 2400 words ] about the Robertson Restrictive Reporting Resolution Rort in the Vancouver Courier.
    City’s restrictive media policy ‘attempt to manipulate public knowledge’
    City of Vancouver defends policy as standard practice for municipalities
    by Mike Howell / Vancouver Courier
    September 25, 2014 12:08 PM
    http://www.vancourier.com/vancouver-votes/election-news/city-s-restrictive-media-policy-attempt-to-manipulate-public-knowledge-1.1389327

    Restricting all access by reporters to 20 “Communications helpers” and a few authorized experts is shameful.

    Howell compares:
    Burnaby

    what the Courier learned is neither Burnaby nor Surrey has a central media line and reporters are free to directly contact staff members.

    “Why is that?” said Karen Leach, who works three days a week as Burnaby’s only communications staffer. “Because it works for us. In fact, there is no media department.”

    In Burnaby, where the biggest issue these days is Kinder Morgan’s plan to build an oil pipeline through the city, Leach said city staff are directly available to reporters.

    “And if there are calls for the mayor’s office, the calls go through his assistant and he takes the calls directly,” she said, noting many reporters have Mayor Derek Corrigan’s cellphone number.

    and Surrey

    In Surrey, Oliver Lum is that municipality’s sole employee working in media relations. Lum described his role more as a facilitator to those reporters unsure of which staff member to contact for information on a story.

    “You don’t have to go through me or the city manager’s office,” he said, noting many veteran reporters have established relationships with staff members and routinely call them for information. “It’s not a centralized thing.”

  • spartikus

    There are a number of reasons why I do not find the story in #21 credible.

    One:

    The City of Vancouver employees some 9000 individuals. Employee monitoring software certainly exists, but actually reading & comprehending what is said in individual emails (don’t forget the phone calls too!) generated each day by even a small number of people requires significant investment in time and manpower. For large organizations, I gather employers use software that generates generic reports on internet/software usage, etc, rather than details. Assuming your friend didn’t spend all day playing Solitaire it’s highly unlikely, simply from a logistical point of view, their work email was being read.

    Of course, I suppose it’s possible they were flagged for closer scrutiny. But then that’s not your claim.

    With all that in mind here’s a more likely scenario than reading the daily email and listening to the voice messages of 9000 employees (which would likely number in the 100s of thousands each day):

    One of the recipients of your friend’s “confidential” email tattled.

    Assuming your friend’s email did not indicate criminal activity, a breach of contract, or fraud – and if by “lost a friend” means they lost their job rather than they ended their friendship with you – then they probably have an option: Sue.

    The courts in Canada are increasingly upholding employees expectations of privacy, even on workplace computers. And you still have to be fired with cause especially in a unionized environment.

    Two:

    In British Columbia there is the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and various Federal legislation for the public sector and the The Personal Information Protection Act for the private and non-profit sector.

    Monitoring “everything in and out of the hall” means that potentially sensitive conversations, such as between a CoV employee and their doctor, are allegedly being recorded, which would be a huge no-no. And it suggests conversations of non-CoV employees ie. “members of the public” are having their phone calls and emails monitored. Again, an incredible legal can of worms.

    But hey, stranger things have happened I guess. So let’s engage in rumourmongering!

  • Jenables

    So spartikus are you doubting an atmosphere of increased secrecy? We already know that much is true, and there are scores of anecdotes from those inside and those formerly inside the hall stating a top down micro managing environment. We know non compliant managers/employees have been terminated or forced into leaving. Did you think they would be replaced with like minded individuals? i think you are suggesting people think it is additional staff whose sole responsibility is to listen to every phone call and read every email. Of course that is ridiculous, but it’s not ridiculous to suggest that new management is monitoring their employees for signs of dissent. why you would bring things like doctors visits into this i have no idea.

  • Jenables

    Also, i note that managers are not unionized and even you cannot deny the massive exodus of those over the last six years.

  • spartikus

    So spartikus are you doubting an atmosphere of increased secrecy?

    I responded to a specific claim. You are pretending I responded to a different claim. It’s the tactic of a weak debater.

    Do you have any concrete evidence every call and email is being monitored?

    Do you?

    Perhaps we should be talking about who’s on who’s payrole, eh Spartikus.

    Is there an accusation you’d like to make?

    Everyone who hasn’t found your religion is on a payroll, eh?

    Good grief.

  • spartikus

    Also, i note that managers are not unionized

    The individual was described as a friend, not a manager.

    Do you have any idea how alienating and counterproductive to your goals the behaviour you & others show on this board is?

    You are not making allies, you are making enemies. For no good reason.

  • spartikus

    Even Frances Bula has to endure this crap.

  • Bill

    “You are not making allies, you are making enemies.”

    Trying to please your enemies won’t make them your friends.

  • spartikus

    Your problem, Bill, is your definition of what constitutes an enemy is extremely broad, and makes Richard Nixon seem overly trusting.

  • jenables

    Even managers have friends, spartikus, though I can agree they aren’t often seated at the desk beside you.

    I really don’t appreciate the way your comments come across. Specifically, your statement about making enemies. You are way out of line and getting ridiculously over sensitive and actually threatening (and yes, i did find that statement threatening) because I questioned why you would be defending a widely reported environment of heightened secrecy and monitoring at city hall. Get a grip, and try to see how the questions I asked relate to what you said. Or, have this conversation in person; I’m not scared of debate and i don’t need to take it personally.

  • spartikus

    If you want to be respected, Jenables, respond to what people actually write and not inventions of your own devising.

    For example

    why you would be defending a widely reported environment of heightened secrecy

    I did no such thing.

  • jenables

    So telling others that you think they are lying when they put forth an anecdote regarding increased monitoring (fyi, secretly monitoring employees certainly is a part of heightened secrecy) is not defending it?

    I used to work for a crown corporation. I was a unionized temporary full time worker. I lost my job because I had non-elective hernia surgery. There was a specific clause in the collective agreement forbidding them from doing this. My union rep was completely unsurprised and told me that the collective agreement didn’t really mean anything and management violated the terms ALL THE TIME.

    Yet you argue these things don’t happen to union employees….working under Penny Ballem, no less.

    If you can’t see how that might look like defending then I am giving you far more credit than you apparently deserve. Unless you would like to clarify how you actually feel, but I won’t hold my breath.

  • Bill

    “your definition of what constitutes an enemy is extremely broad”

    The progressive tent is not as broad as you would like to believe.