So, this is what, the 3rd or 4th breach of the Charter??? Sorry, I am losing track.

Breach of the Charter?!! Oh my! [Klaxons sound]

I’m a bit of dumb dumb, Max. Here’s the Charter. Perhaps you could help me out and show what’s being egregiously breached?

Here, let me help you out and highlight something that might be relevant:

14. (1) For the purposes of conducting an election, the City Clerk is to be the chief election officer unless the Council appoints another person to be the chief election officer.

Let me post that again with a little bit of bolding added:

14. (1) For the purposes of conducting an election, the City Clerk is to be the chief election officer unless the Council appoints another person to be the chief election officer.

Apparently Council wasn’t unanimous – not that the Charter stipulates it needs to be – when Janice MacKenzie was appointed, so I ask again why did Suzanne Anton oppose?

If it was simply because it broke with “tradition” and not because Janice MacKenzie is deficient in some way then the person interfering with the electoral process is…Suzanne Anton.

But I could be wrong. There might some reason, not yet public.

Ah, Tradition!

(*cue music from Fidler on the Roof* I guess there are worse tunes to have playing in your head.)

So let me get this straight. The deputy clerk has always run the elections in fact, and no one has complained. What’s more, recently the deputy clerk has been not only running the elections but acting as chief clerk while the regular chief was out sick, again without anyone expressing a concern. Now city council has declared – as is their right under the city charter – that the specific person who was ALREADY running the elections – without anyone complaining – will be formally named as the person running them… Uhm. So what?

I would feel a lot better about Anton and Klassen if they stuck to pointing out things Vision actually does wrong – or better yet, saying what exactly they would do differently on matters of substance – rather than having screaming fits in opposition to any random decision just because it is being done by the people they want to replace and/or claiming to oppose things that Anton actually supported when they were voted in.

Dearest Max,

The NPA does indeed pull crap and for 95% of said NPA crap-pulling I am unmoved to comment.

However, and here is an angle you might not have considered, I am not objecting to something the NPA said. As I say, there might be a very good reason why Suzanne Anton opposed Janice MacKenzie. It just hasn’t been made public yet. Hence my questions.

No, I was challenging something you said.

So…about the Charter breach you allege above. Are you going to help me out with that or – and here’s a wacky idea – are you going to withdraw the claim?

Spartikus,
When changing an accepted tradition, it is usually up the “changee” ie. Vision to explain why they feel the need to alter established convention.

Given Vision’s penchant to politicize civic staff positions, its understandable people from all sides of the political spectrum are concerned.

Vision Vancouver’s Green Commie Hall.
Need to say no more.
Communists defended their points of view for 8 decades. Check out their results. Dan Cooper is a fairy tale aficionado. A couch revolutionary.
Trying to deflect the attention from what is really happening is the way they operate. Insulting, really.

Frances, thanks for your post and your attention to this matter, which you correctly point out has questionable aspects to it.

I don’t think anyone is concerned who is doing the heavy lifting during the election process – whether it be Paul Hancock, who is strongly rumoured (thanks to an Allen Garr report) to have left the City on principle – or Coulson herself when she was deputy during past elections.

What matters the most is who is the person at the top? They set the course and are ultimately accountable for our election process. That person is traditionally the city clerk.

What your readers should understand is that this is just another example of Vision manipulating the public service to suit their own agenda rather than the public’s. Why indeed try to slip this out as a bullet on the in-camera meeting minutes? Can you imagine the head of a federal or provincial elections body being announced as a footnote in Hansard?

Clearly there was not going to be any official statement coming forward about the change, or why it was necessary. To date the City and Mayor’s office have been silent on the change – they’d rather have the media pouring over viaduct demolition studies or bike lane economic impacts.

Our elections are the ultimate way citizens express their confidence (or lack thereof) in our governments. Everything about them must be above reproach, and doing so requires being more transparent. I suggest that the Mayor would be wise to invite the NPA, COPE & Vision reps into a process to ensure that confidence in our electoral system is restored.

This isn’t the first time Vision wanted to put their own stamp on how elections happen in Vancouver. Remember just a few weeks ago Minister Ida Chong smartly put the brakes on Vision’s internet voting idea until further study.

Vision by their actions indicate that they are not at all interested in an open, consultative process when it comes to how we elect our representatives. If the NPA had attempted to ram through measures like these during back room meetings I somehow doubt that Vision nor COPE would shrug it off. Like the foolish hiring of the political insider Kurt Heinrich as the VSB’s public relations rep, it’s clear to the folks I talk to that when it comes to political hubris, Vision has the market all sewn up.

Let me rephrase it:

What advantage does Vision gain by naming the Deputy City Clerk the Chief Elections Officer?

If it’s not Janice MacKenzie the person who is objectionable, then there’s some sort of mechanism or power the City Clerk has the Deputy City Clerk doesn’t while serving as Chief Elections Officer that will allow Vision to advance it’s “own agenda rather than the public’s.”

I mean, that’s the only way this thing would make sense, right?

Can someone help me out here?

higgins sez, “Dan Cooper is a fairy tale aficionado. A couch revolutionary.”

Oo! Coming from someone who believes Vision are literally capital-c Communists a la the Brezhnev zastoi or dare we say Stalinschina eras, that’s quite sweet.

I must say I do like fairy tales, and come to think of it have been known to post corrupted Shel Silverstein poems hereabouts.

(p.s. “Death to the sofa running dogs! Power to the chesterfields!”)

Let’s not be La-z-boy(s). All hail the Ottoman Empire! To rebel is human, but to overthrow… divan.

Democratic processes need to be fair not only in practice but also in appearance in order to ensure public confidence in the results.

We’ve seen an unprecedented politicization and muzzling by Mayor Robertson of what was one of the most respected and independent civil services of any city in Canada. Senior bureaucrats representing the institutional memory of the city have been summarily fired or retired, department heads have been muzzled, and independence ended with centralized decision-making trumping good policy development and orderly process.

The sad result is that the presumption of impartiality by the civil service has also been eroded, and the interference with council precedent in appointing a lower-level, less independent staffer as Elections Officer erodes public confidence more gravely still.

This Mayor has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the democratic processes of this city, whether borrowing $1 Billion without holding a plebiscite, as required under the city’s charter; hand-picking docile advisory committees as he’s done in the west end; deriding citizens that appeared before him as partisan hacks when they were (previously) his own supporters; or shutting off the mikes of opposition councillors in order to avoid embarrassing questions.

For all of these reasons, let alone concern for propriety and the integrity of this fall’s civic election, the Mayor’s attempt to bypass the independent City Clerk as election officer in favour of a junior, more vulnerable appointee is anathema to regular process and the free, fair and open democratic election we all expect

It was alright for Mike to condemn everything Vision did when he was writing a column. But now he is running for Council and Susan Anton for Mayor, what is there vision for Vancouver, just anti-Vision?

Adele, no need for the tired class warfare language. One of the strengths of Vision Vancouver is that they have been every bit as adept as the NPA in catering to developers. Only they cloak it in a green mantle. And given their ties to the federal Liberals, one can rest assured VV supporters aren’t starving in garrets somewhere.

Adele, you sound curiously like another Kevin Quinlan clone.

All well and fine to make such statements without a shred of evidence to back it up. I’m sure there are many “NPA” things which came about under their governance that you take for granted (i.e. Four Pillars, commitment to 20% social housing, Streetohome Foundation, EcoDensity Charter, re-development of Yaletown & Coal Harbour neighbourhoods, Clouds of Change, CityPlan, Triple A credit rating, delivering on 2010 Games, etc.). I’m also sure as a member of their caucus that we’ll have many things that will please even the most skeptical voters like yourself this fall.

Above all we will hold Vision to account for their own broken promises on homelessness, accountability and their failure to support the arts. Read my colleague Sean Bickerton’s excellent recap of those items above. We support and will restore the principle of a non-partisan public service immediately upon forming government in December.

See you on the campaign trail!

Staff close to the clerk”s department say that this comes from 2 motivations. It is practical: Marg Coulson was away on stress leave and much election prep work was done by Mackenzie, and; Mckenzie and Ballen are close. Very close. Coulson and Ballem, not so much. Indeed, Coulson’s leave is said to be in part the result of Ballem Bullying.

spartikus, your sleuthing must have the NPA shaking in their boots. BTW, it’s sunny outside. Have you even got dressed and left the house?

@ Sparticus 29. Your point: “There has for the past few years beens ome [sic] who have railed against what they perceive as partisan firings and forced retirements of civil servants – despite the fact that statistically staff turnover has been constant.”

Seriously? Are you citing Ms. Ballem’s memo early this year providing “statistics” on the overall turnover rate of the City’s 8,000 plus employees to allay fears that she, the Mayor and City Council have not politicized the City Hall bureaucracy? If so, it is an unfortunate citation that detracts from what may be other credible points in your positions. What is the statistical significance of 8 or 9 Department Heads in a sea of 8,000 employees? Hardly significant at all! Unless of course you look at their sphere of influence, who they report to, and what they are responsible for.

As fascinating as it would be to think about the implications of a politically appointed beat cop or fire fighter, a more relevant statistic to cite would be the turnover of the 2008 Corporate Management Team, comprised of positions that reported to Mayor and Council or to the City Manager (City Manager, 2 Deputy City Managers, Fire Chief, Director of Parks and Recreation, General Manager of Olympic Operations, Manager of Human Resources, etc). There are ample postings on this topic, including one on this blog, which cites 75% turnover of these positions as at February 2011.

In these critical months leading up the election, I am certain you did not intend to gloss over the ample healthy dialogue on this subject to regurgitate whitewash that may lead Vancouver voters to believe there hasn’t been an incredibly successful politicization of the City Hall senior management by the current Mayor and Council. Because if you did, it would be just plain sad.

There are ample postings on this topic, including one on this blog, which cites 75% turnover of these positions as at February 2011.

Oh? I take it you mean the Bulablog post Memo listing departed staff at Vancouver city hall makes the rounds which cites a doc that shows the “75%” is actually a list of 9 names. The doc author asks the loaded question “Were the retirements intended?”

I will reply with the same answer I gave on that thread: Perhaps someone could ask? Retirees being free to give their opinion and all.

Oh sure, for a couple like Judy Rodgers and Jody Andrews it would be safe to speculate they were shown the door. For “ideological” reasons? Well, gee, I dunno. There was that whole Olympic Village thingie. Maybe, just maybe, that was a consideration too.

And no evidence is given to show this turnover is somehow unusual…

…here’s one that was unusual:

Citing low wages, limited career opportunities and the abrupt cancellation of a four-day work week, more than two dozen managers and professional staff have quit their jobs at Vancouver’s city hall in the past two years.

That’s an attrition rate about double the norm for the city.

-F. Bula March 31, 2000

Some more observations from this blog:

A lot of people, including the business community, think that city hall’s senior levels needed a shake-up. But that shake-up has to result in positive results at the end. So far, it’s not clear to people inside or outside the hall how things are getting better.

-F. Bula, September 3rd, 2010

Perhaps Vision is of the view that the high turnover is a good thing and that they are putting more effective people into the roles vacated by those who are leaving.

-IanS (who will undoubtedly be very pleased I am citing him for this LOL), Feb 8, 2011

In the private sector this sort of turnover isn’t unusual – new ownership comes in and takes the company in a new direction, and so on.

Is it possible that some people are being driven out who might otherwise have stayed?

Yes.

But there are lots of other possible explanations too. Including, for example, mundane demographics – the boomers are retiring after all.

No one has, in my opinion, constructed a concrete, well-supported argument there is some some sort of ideological purge at City Hall.

It’s ambiguous at best and the whisperings of axe-grinders at worst.

I found Councilor Woodsworth’s criticism of John Furlong’s appointment disingenuous this past week. Shouldn’t Councillor Woodsworth also be concerned about Mayor Robertson’s in-camera replacement of City Clerk, Marg Coulson, with his choice of Janice Mackenzie, the Assistant Clerk?

The City Clerk has been the Chief Election Officer with few exceptions. Based on precedent and the intent of the Charter, any change to this practice must be publicly justified. Is Councillor Woodsworth really concerned about “politicizing …in an election campaign”, or is she trying to cover for Mayor Robertson?

The Assistant Clerk and other staff can do the heavy lifting, but with respect to ensuring a fair and impartial election, the buck stops this time with the Clerk, the senior civil servant responsible for ensuring the City’s business is fairly and evenly managed generally as well as during elections. That is why the charter specifies same. Given this responsibility it is not surprising Penny Ballem may well have contributed to Marg Coulson’s recent leave of absence.

Based on what is known today there is no reason whatsoever to replace the Clerk as the Chief Election Officer. If there is, why was this done behind closed doors with no attempt by Vision to provide any rationale whatsoever. This has all the appearances of a continuation of the deliberate politicization of the City’s civil service. Our democratic system of open, transparent and fair government cannot function in such an environment.

@ Spartikus 36.

You’re right Sparticus. Nothing out of the ordinary here, everything is fine at City Hall. Change is good, and nothing new. In fact, 10 years ago something similar, but even more unusual happened. 24 mid level staff from among hundreds of their peers left over a 24 month period to seek different working hours. Not quite comparable, as it didn’t follow a near political sweep of Council, but happened mid-administration, but close enough. Ok, the departed weren’t members of the Corporate Management team, or all that senior, being engineers and planners and such, but close enough. Ok, they weren’t 75% of their peer group, but closer to about 8% (24 out of 300 say – someone can help here with the actual numbers). Well gee that’s pretty close to 75% for our purposes and certainly confirms there is “no evidence that this [75%] turnover was unusual”. And they were also replaced through a competitive hiring process, as opposed to politically appointed, but why split hairs? Why spend good money recruiting when you can just appoint people for free?

We’re not worried any more about these kinds of ‘lists of names’. That’s a good phrase. “List of names”. So innocuous. They’re not people. They’re not seasoned professionals who devoted their careers to excellence in local government overseeing hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars or directing life saving services. They’re just a collection of letters forming words making up a list of names. You know, honestly, even if they were real people some of them at least probably deserved something bad happening to them for being public servants for so long and implementing City Council’s priorities.

And you’re probably right about the baby boom retirements. This executive turnover is consistent with 75% of the world’s workforce retiring between December 2008 and February 2011. If you google this you can find all sorts of supporting evidence on this very thing. There is a guy in Coquitlam whose uncle retired in January 2011, which validates these claims. Let’s not split hairs about the concept of retirement either. So what if some of these people are working as senior managers and registrars and city managers elsewhere now. For our purposes, they ‘retired’ and that’s all we need to know.

But even though we have proven there is no evidence or argument that this happened, if it did there would have been good reasons. I mean if it did happen, which it didn’t. But if it did, they would have had it coming. Frances heard that “…a lot of people, including the business community, think that city hall’s senior levels needed a shake-up”. This is so true. A lot of us know people in the fruit juice business community who felt this way. Certainly there are people in the medical business community who also felt this way, and at least one in the labor business community who also show signs of feeling this way. This list of validations goes on and on.

But let’s not derail this thread any further by talking about lists and things that didn’t happen but if they did would have been justified. We’re convinced. We’re all very proud of this new approach to municipal government, even if it isn’t happening, and ashamed of ourselves for grinding axes about these kinds of baseless concerns. We are certain none of this really matters to the taxpayers of Vancouver or to future elected Councils who will be just fine with their inherited Vision administration. Non-political administrations are so passé. Think of the entertainment value alone of having an elected Council of one political persuasion, but an administration of another! Many of us can’t wait for this kind of spectacle, or the endless severance packages and/or job opportunities it will offer. City Council candidates are so off base to be commenting on this kind of stuff when there so many more important issues to be debating. We are all just plain happy now that you’ve explained how silly we are. Where is Glissando Remmy when you need him?

@Just Plain Sad

That is obviously a very heartfelt comment. But here’s the thing – you could be right…and they could be right. When organizations go in different directions it’s common for employees to feel loss and marginalized. That’s why there’s a whole sub-industry of change-management consultants.

I’m not saying you’re 50% right and they’re 50% right. It could be any combination in either direction – I know people at City Hall and I’ve heard stories too.

I also know, through direct conversation, that there are people on that list who resent being on that list because it’s making it seem they hold a position they don’t.

But for you and the audience at home, that’s hearsay. Which is why I refrain from using it.

Dang! that didn’t work out so well. Anyway, here it is again, inline:

http://www.geekculture.com/joyoftech/joyarchives/698.html

C’est mois!

This is not about the individual but rather about adhering to the city’s charter

Sigh…let’s revisit the Charter [again]:

14. (1) For the purposes of conducting an election, the City Clerk is to be the chief election officer unless the Council appoints another person to be the chief election officer.

There is no “constitutional violation”. It was perfectly legal.

If it’s not the individual, then it’s simply the precedent of the thing.

“We have to do it that way because that’s the way it’s always been done!’

The Chief Courtier has always had red hair! Why has the King appointed one with black hair!”

Though not stated directly by them we have, through Jeff Lee and Frances Bula, been given a plausible explanation for the switch: to accommodate an illness.

The person appointed is the same person who has been running it already, would be doing so operationally during the election anyway, and is by all accounts highly respected. What’s ad hoc about that?

The simple fact is there was no compelling reason to oppose this appointment and continuing to do so will be what actually undermines “the people’s confidence”.

Let this one go. It’s not a winner.

Thank you A Dave for your kind words. Stay tuned.

I don’t think any witch hunt is in the offing, but what I said in 39 I think is a fair and reasonable expectation.