Frances Bula header image 2

Killarney CCA president: Additional info on many points, and “we are hoping the park board will enter into genuine, transparent negotiations”

February 9th, 2013 · 14 Comments

Ainslie Kwan, president of the Killarney CCA, sent me this letter to help clarify some points I had raised in an earlier post. Thought it would be helpful for everyone to see this, as it does provide helpful new information.

Hi Frances,

Thanks for continuing to cover the story about community centre associations. I appreciate this is a complicated story without much clarity on several important items. I’m also finding it complicated to respond since the slide deck we see from Park Board changes on almost a daily basis.

I was reading your blog post and thought it would be helpful to try and offer some additional information on a couple of points you raised.

Killarney was one of the community centres who signed on to present a counter proposal and negotiate. We have always been open to being part of a transparent and amicable negotiation process. Even with recent developments, we are still fully supportive of proper negotiations. We removed ourselves when Mr. Bromley announced on Jan.28th that he was willing to negotiate for up to three weeks. From our point of view, this only further reinforced Mr. Bromley’s previously documented stance that that the plan was not negotiable. Despite his revised presentation on Monday evening, we continue to feel that timeline isn’t reasonable based on the magnitude of the negotiations that need to take place.

My thoughts on a couple of your points:

Point 2 Grants – Our treasurer contacted the Ursula Cowland – Executive Director – Licensing and Grants Division for the BC Government via email to confirm that CCAs would no longer be eligible for grants if the PB operated the programs (including designing the programs, negotiating wages of instructors, setting the fees for public to use the program and receiving the revenue from the program).

Her response was:

“What you have said is true – if the community centre association is not in control of the program operations – we cannot fund them for that program.  HOWEVER:  I have also been in contact with the Parks and Recreation folks and we will be working together to solve any issues:

– The General Manager has committed to work with each Community Centre to ensure that they can continue to provide those programs funded by gaming grants.

From our side:

– We are honouring all of the applications received from community centre associations prior to November 30, 2012 and will be providing appropriate grants

– Then, over the summer, we will be working with the Parks and Recreation staff to determine how the new arrangement will roll out – so that we can provide you with good information for the 2013 applications.

I am not sure who from the Parks Board is working on this but I stand by the statements I made about the grants not being available based on the information that was available at the time.

My evaluation is that Park Board has finally realized that it can’t afford to lose $3 million dollars a year in grants so they have now moved away from their original position of “all programming will be done by the Park Board”. I feel they will now look as ways allow the associations to run the programs that would be grant eligible.

 

Point 3 – Budgeting

Most associations including Killarney have indicated that we are willing to look at a collaborative model for revenue sharing like perhaps “cost sharing”. We believe that this will help community centres who do not have a lot of programming space like bigger centres. What we do not agree with is pooling them together and having the PB distribute the funds as they see fit. There is no specific guarantee that all of the pooled money will stay within community centres and could be used for other city initiatives.

I agree with the comments that you made in point 5. I believe all associations are on board with sharing costs or a model like you are suggesting. Now what remains to be seen is if the PB will give up on the “Non Negotiable “plan to take all of the $$. Mr.Bromley did say Monday night he believes his plan is the” best one”. When Commissioner Jasper spoke in favor of the motion he said it was because city staff says it is the best plan. This could perhaps lead the public to believe some have already made up their minds before the negotiations even start.

Fundraising

I am not sure how the impression was given that collecting revenues from programs and room rentals etc. is fundraising.  This is certainly not the case. A fact presented at Monday’s meeting is that the total cost to run all community centres is approximately $36 million per year. Associations pay 55% of these costs from revenues generated. In some cases, such as Kerrisdale, the CCA pays significantly more of the operating costs, which is supposed to free up the Park Board to better assist other centres with public money.

As I sat at Monday’s meeting until 3:30am I was struck by the fact that I believe more than ever the group of 6 community centres were right to bring this matter to the public’s attention. It’s my firm opinion that Mr. Bromley has now moved from “Non Negotiable” and “take it or leave it”, from “willing to negotiate for three weeks” to a five month facilitated negotiation because of public pressure.

Thank you for continuing to tell all sides of this very complex story. I really appreciate you trying to fully educate yourself. We are all hoping that the Park Board will now enter into genuine, transparent negations so we can all get back to what we do best… Volunteering in our communities.

Many thanks,

Ainslie Kwan

President – Killarney Community Centre Society

 

 

 

Categories: Uncategorized

  • tf

    Cost sharing and revenue sharing is NOT worth the bureaucratic nightmare that follows!

    Take it from someone who lived through the nightmare – years of emails back and forth about whether “this invoice” or “that payment” was included or not.

    We finally ended up signing an agreement to END the practice and we just suck up the expenses in exchange for keeping the revenue.

    Be warned – DO NOT DO IT!

  • Mira

    I have only one thing to say.
    Read ALL comments from Eric Harms, from the previous post especially (the response to that lying Sarah B….h) and complement with the ones from an older post 29 January Re. community centers…
    Then write back and complain to this Park Board of hooligans, and to their masters… the crooks inside City Hall. They know who they are. Then vote them out! This is what I call negotiations Ballem style!

  • Raymond Tomlin

    Engaging in negotiations with Park Board — I think CCAs will find — will end up, in reality, as negotiating the terms of their death. Community centre advisory councils’ may result, but their ‘advice’ will be ignored by the City.

    I do not take issue with the integrity of either Park Board Chair Sarah Blyth or Park Board General Manager Malcolm Bromley — both of whom are committed to a fair negotiating process — but they are deluded if they think that Vancouver’s City Manager, Dr. Penny Ballem, has anything other on HER agenda than to take control of ALL programme decision-making at our community centres – and thus fiscal control – while turning them into profit centres for the City – in essence, ‘private’ recreation centres that will in no sense of the term remain as ‘community centres’ – thus allowing Vision Vancouver a funding source to continue to their ‘bikes’ transportation agenda.

    CUPE 15 President Paul Faoro has a role to play in the present imbroglio, as well, as I believe he wishes to push volunteers out of our community centres, in favour of all paid CC staff – a development that occurred in our school system some time ago. Mr. Faoro represents his Union – but does he represent the interests of the community? I think not.

    I believe, as well, that by this time next year, the Vision Vancouver dominated Council will move to repeal Part XXIII of the Vancouver Charter, and that our current Park Board will be the last elected Park Board, while Council turns the Board into a politicized Council-appointed committee, with little power other than advisory, which advice will be ignored.

    Still, the fight is not over. City/ParkBoard/CCA negotiations are set to last through the end of June, long enough for the community to pull together to demand that our neighbourhood community centres remain independent, and that our elected community centre association Boards continue the very important work they perform in providing programmes that are sensitive to and reflect the needs of the neighbourhoods they serve, and thus the larger community in which all of us reside across Vancouver.

  • Ned

    WOW. So simple.
    Nothing more to add. What: tf, Mira and Raymond said! 1,2,3…

  • Terry M

    What a sad joke. How was it possible for this gang of Vision to get re-elected is beyond me. What a con job! You done well Vancouver! Phew.

  • Terry Martin

    Just a comment to show what a scam this whole meeting was , 1st vision calls an emergency meeting with only 3 days notice, and the over 20 page document is only available on the morning of the meeting,what was the big rush on an issue this important , surely the public and park board members for that matter should have been given a reasonable time to study the document,and then why the rush to have a vote that day.Chair Sarah Blyth stated that she continued the meeting because she believed that the public wanted to continue that night until all speakers were heard from,while a show of hands was taken to see if the public wanted to continue that night or adjourn to another evening(it was after midnite)well over 80% said they wanted to adjourn, it is reported long after that in the newspaper article Chair Sarah Blyth stated that she continued the meeting due to the wishes of the public at the meeting, so she seems to be trying to maintain an outright lie! The wishes of the public were clear,adjournment was called for by the attendees many times,so why the rush to have a vote? The one thing that I disagree with in Mr. Tomlins comment is that I do take issue with the integrity of Chair Sarah Blyth ,when she insists on continuing to say that she believed the public wanted to continue,when it was completely clear that the public wanted an adjournment,this shows no integrity.Finally ,when you misrepresent something it is obvious that you believe that the truth is insufficient

  • Morven

    A suggestion.

    Time to step away from the brink, ensure we are dealing with a common information base, and really engage the communities in steering the parks and recreation system.

    I am merely a casual observer. I neither work for the city (or any bureaucracy), am not on the board of any community centre association, but I do use some community centres.

    I am appalled by the policy disaster that has been spawned by the Parks Board.

    I am appalled by the lack of leadership by the Mayor.

    My suggestions will likely be consigned to an electronic garbage can, might inflame reactions even more but here they are:

    Three reasons why the Parks Board will not stand back.

    1. Just because they think they have all the levers of power
    2. The think they are right but do not disclose the evidence. Intentionally or not, they appear secretive
    3. Their political judgement is skewed.

    Three reasons why the Community Centres might not agree.

    1. Some of them are genuinely scared of how political power is exercised by the Parks Board and how it will impact their community in recreation provision
    2. Many are confused just what rights they do have as non-profit societies.
    3. All of them understand the role their community association plays in the health and welfare of their neighbourhood and cannot understand why the Parks Board wants to curtail the system flexibility.

    Three reasons why the public is confused

    1. There is no evidence that the Mayor intends to act as a mediator in this dispute and act for all the citizens
    2. There is no evidence that the city officials have a genuine understanding on the role of communities and community centres
    3. They are cynical and sceptical about the motives and the skills of the Parks Board.

    There are three outstanding elements obvious to an ordinary citizen.

    1. Both the Parks Board and the Community Centres are dealing with incomplete and unshared information. There is no common set of facts.
    2. The Parks Board has not done it’s homework and fails to understand the role community centres play in the lives of ordinary citizens. It is not just an accounting exercise. The funds held by some community centres might well be ring fenced and not available for redistribution.
    3. The Parks Board elected representatives lack the political skills to adapt and obtain a compromise in the public interest. They are wedded to a technocratic model. They have not learnt from the experiences of other communities.

    One simple solution:

    A. The Parks Board and the Community Centre Associations set aside the fractious engagement and gather a common set of facts.
    B. Both should agree that they are both acting in the public interest.
    C. The Parks Board and the Community Centre Associations jointly fund an independent, arms length management analyst to assess the Parks Board funding model, gather the evidence from both sides, hear from the stakeholders, assess other models and present a report with the various policy options. The study to last three months.
    D. The study have particular attention to cost recovery models and which activities should be subsidised, the level of the subsidy and the organisational models to deliver the services. The study to emphasise the advantages and disadvantages of the community centre model versus the centralised delivery model.
    E. Both organizations then convene a set of hearings, using the common information base and then make recommendations on the best model for Vancouver.
    F. Then when the Parks Board Commissioners vote on which policy to embrace, citizens are at least entitled to know that the decisions were based on properly assessing the evidence, assessing the risk to the city, and demonstrating that they have procedures in place to manage the risks.

    Of course this idea may well fan the flames.
    -30-

  • Marie

    Rest assured that my husband and I will carefully research all the Parks Board (and other) players in this disgraceful power-grab, and we will do our best to get them voted OUT!

    Please help by making sure voters can get a list of whom NOT TO VOTE FOR next election.

    Signed,

    Not usually political, but now very mad!

  • gman

  • gman

  • gman

  • jenables

    Thanks for the video links, gman.. from there I linked to Stuart’s blog, which is wonderful, then started reading about the subject of his Feb 9th post… a great read. But I digress…

  • Terry M

    Gman,
    What jenables said!
    Hard on the eyes. To see all those people in there and knowing they’ve been used!
    🙁

  • Lorna Gibbs

    Keenly interested in our Community-based community centres.