to finish the sentence: Both the PB and the rogue CCA’s are engaged in a game of brinksmanship. The court’s will determine certain matters in this unseemly dispute but I would be extremely surprised if the courts will prevent the PB from taking actions which it sees to be in the best interests of the CoV. It is highly unlikely that with 15 other CCA’s at the table negotiating and 6 refusing to talk (their supporters seem to suggest that the PB negotiate individually with each of them which is not going to happen, nor should it), that court is goign to side with 6 rogues.
The court may say that certain steps should have been taken by the PB before giving them the boot but that is simply procedural stuff that may serve to delay, nothing more.

Morven @203. Clearly, the JOA’s are between each CCA and the PB. However, as earlier noted by Mark Vulliamy, they are similar if not identical in key respects. No-one is suggesting: for each CCA to have an identical agreement down to the last comma.” That said, there is equally no reason why JOA’s should be differnt unless there is a good reason for them to be different. Moreover in may cases, while there may have been good reason for some differentces, there may no longer be a reason for those differences.
The party who owns the assets is the person who purchased them unless there is an agreement otherwise. An exception is fixtures which belong to the owner of the property unless there is agreement otherwise. The facilities are owned by the CoV, not the CCA’s.
The courts do not determine whether a notice period is reasonable, only whether it applies, and if so, whether it was complied with. A notice period is there to provide for a situation where the two pariies no longer wish to deal with each other either at all or on the terms of the agreement. The notice period allows them to part ways (what is happening with the 6) or to negotiate something different (which is what is happening with the 15
The PB would have to be crazy to negotiate a separate agreement with each CCA. It might make sense to negotiate an overall template (which is what I expect is happening in negotiations with the 15) with room to address particular issues at any particular community centre.
Entering into separate negotiations is a formula for the PB to get whipsawed or a colossal waste of everybody’s time.
“Just because centralisation seems a good idea does not mean that is always legal and reasonable.” Say what?!?!?!

Morven: as I explained earlier, the point of notice periods is to allow severance or renegotiation. That is what is happening here: renegotiation with 15; severance with 6 who refuse to negotiate except on ridiculous terms.
The courts are unlikely to decide on reasonableness since the issues are political. However even if they did, reasonableness is not the same as agreement. Something is reasonable if is not arbitrary; if thought has gone into it, whether the judge or you agree with it.
Has the PB behaved in good faith? Well, it is negotiating with 15; there is no reason to believe they are not prepared to reach an agreement. Does the PB want an agreement on its terms? Of course, what party in negotiations doesn’t. The outcome will depend on the relative strengths and negotiating skills of the parties. In this case, one party is refusing to negotiate while the elected PB has the mandate, both political and statutory. Who is unreasonable?
There is no such thing as public interest law. This is primarily contract law with a bit of municipal law. Mostly it is the last hurrah of the rogue 6 who have boxed themselves into a corner and while they may win a skirmish or 2, they will not win the overall war. Maybe in the next civic election, but by then they will have lost their community centres.

waltyss writes, “Dan Cooper @55 and Norman @ 60. How do you consult with someone who won’t talk. 16 CCA’s are at the table and are talking. Their JOA’s are not being cancelled.
6 refuse to talk, start an advertising campaign and go to court.”

From all I’ve seen, the six community centre boards have very much wanted to talk, and have proposed talks in writing several times. They just don’t want to talk under the specific terms of reference/limitations on discussion, and pre-existing and never-withdrawn threats, imposed unilaterally ahead of time by the Park Board. They want to negotiate separately in other words, with a clean slate. The Park Board has refused, saying they will only negotiate with all the centres(*) together and under their own terms and conditions. This is the kind of over-controlling I have seen lead to disaster in many situations: committee meetings that turned into near riots when the chair tried to be a petty dictator; peaceful demonstrations that turned into literal riots or otherwise fiascos (my ‘favourite’ was when a couple police cars ran into each other as they screamed into the scene to back up their brothers who were beating and dragging off folks who had just stepped across an arbitrary line with their hands held in the air) because the police tried to completely silence, control and marginalize the “anti” side while allowing the “pro” side to go through; parents who have demanded absolute control over their children both as youth and adults and as a result ended up with no control at all.

(*) Well, all together except of course Strathcona and Roundhouse, which get to be separate. I guess what’s allowed for the goose is not allowed for the gander.

Finally, and as others have noted: If the Park Board is allowed to go ahead with dissolution here, the issue of division of property is still going to be key. The Park Board seems to be presenting this as, “We get everything, even if it was originally built with Community Centre Association funds.” Very questionable.

Dan Cooper, wow! My point is that the rather silly in my view) game the rogue 6 are playing is going to end up with them on the street with their equipment. In the letter to PB from their lawyer (not a legal document but a political one), they say they own the equipment. From the excerpts set out in this thread by Mark Vulliamy, the CCA’s clearly do (leaving aside issues of fixtures). If the rogues are given the boot, do you honestly think they would sell that equipment to the PB, even if they had nowhere to take it. I don’t.
Somehow you and some others believe that criticism of the rogue 6 and their tactics is an attack on volunteerism and all that is good and decent. Hardly! Nor is it to suggest that these people don’t honestly believe that they are acting in the best interests of their community centre. In my view, their tactics are misguided but I do not doubt they are sincere in their beliefs.
Are they NPA hacks? Most are not but a few undoubtedly are. Are some looking to make a name for themselves politically? Yes, I think it is cldear some are. Is that a bad thing? No.
As for disagreeing with Vision, as I have earlier said, I disagree with the heavyhanded approach the PB has taken, at least initially, even as I agree with their overall goals.
Part of the problem on this (and seemingly most blogs) is that it all divides into a “you are with us or agin us” approach. In my view, the PB could have handled it much better but I am also of the view that the rogue 6 see themselves in a turf war and are not interested in negotiating a changed system.
Bill McCreery keeps saying that “the CCA’s generally understand that the JOA’s need to be updated and, in particular, that the principle of Citywide accessibility must be part of that. ” Hopefully that is true but it is not apparent from what they post or their court actions they have brought.

Here is the response from the 6 associations to the Parks Board’ termination letter:

http://prod-admin1.glacier.atex.cniweb.net:8080/fileserver/file/210163/filename/injunction

I understand through the PB annoucnements that 50,000 OneCards have been signed up for.

How does this number compare to prior member participation – right accross the board?

Was the number more/less than 50K?

It has also been mentioned that some of the OneCards have been cancelled after the three free visits – are these numbers being tracked?

What an interesting letter. The dissenting CCAs are not going to accept the dissolution of the agreement? They will seek an injunction on the dissolution?

How fascinating. They won’t bargain with the Parks Board but they won’t allow the dissolution of the agreement with the Parks Board either.

There was something in the letter about third parties being involved – maybe mediation would be good to try.

Morven @ 217. My calling them rogues may do me no favours but I fail to see why or how it would involve Vision since I have no connection with Vision.
As for two parties each claiming to act in the public interest, there is only one party who acts and is mandated to act for the entire park system. Let me help you; it ain’t the rogues.
As teriisn’titrich asserts, the third party reference is to people renting facilities in community centres. Her tone and hate on for Vision makes clear that she thinks it is awful that the PB is asking for names and contact information. Why?
Clearly the reason the PB wants it is to keep those third parties from getting embroiled in the dispute. If the notice is valid (as I expect it will be found to be) and the information is not shared, then the people who lose are those third parties who have no contact with the PB. The rogues’ position that they will not hand it over will end up having the result that either the third parties cancel and they risk not having a venue.
Similarly the letter from the rogues’ lawyer asserts that contact with the CCA’s employees in the Community Centres is interfering with contractual relations. Their position is odious!
Clearly the PB is trying to reassure employees that their jobs at the Community Centres won’t be in jeopardy if the CCA’s are turfed. Now, unless the CCA’s can guarantee these employees their jobs even if turfed, they are endangering their employees’ livelihoods and making it clear that they won’t be happy unless there is blood on the ground. Odious indeed.
By the way, where is the money coming from for the rogues to fight this legal fight?

It isn’t the ’employees’ that will lose jobs. I am pretty sure as city employees they are union.

But the PB seems to consider the volunteers disposable. But then again, they can be replaced by more unionized employees.

And the contracts are with the CCA’s not the Park Board at this point.

That would be like saying to a sales person; ‘Hey, we are letting you go from your job, but hand over all your contacts and any contracts you have in place’ – Who is set to prosper?

What seems odd is that there already is an agreement in place and that agreement should be legally binding.The CCAs didn’t breach the agreement the PB did.I would think any agreement or contract of this nature would have a renegotiation or termination clause in it, but the City thinks they can just roll right over these volunteer organizations. And how can the CCAs maintain their tax exempt status if they are forced to hand over their donations and profits to the CoV ?

You might think when you’re arguing with everybody else in the room that maybe you could be the one who doesn’t get it.

@Waltyss#224:

As a ‘salesperson’ I can call BS on your assertion that it is the job of a that person, should they be let go to hand over their work.

Your over the top theatrics are somewhat amusing regardless of how incorrect you are.

I cannot help notice how readily condesending and belittling you are in your supposed superior though – your attempt to be right about everything, all the time. . Like I said, amusing.

Perhaps your highly partisian view doesn’t allow you to see both sides of the coin. You are quick to use the word partisan with everybody who does not support Vision, yet can’t quite seem to turn that mirror on yourself.

If anyone’s interested in the lawsuit launched by the various associations, here’s a link to the Notice of Civil Claim:

http://www.scribd.com/fullscreen/162075570?access_key=key-26aowj8g9w9gxbak3azy&allow_share=true&view_mode=scroll

“how can the CCAs maintain their tax exempt status if they are forced to hand over their donations and profits to the CoV?”

Good question, gman, and it appears to relate directly to the “3rd party” issues that have also been raised.

For example, there are decades-long 3rd party partnerships between CCA’s and other community groups that are threatened by the Parks Board’s actions. The one I have volunteered hundreds of hours for over the past 8 years has been active in this city in various permutations for nearly 100 years now. The symbiotic relationship that it developed more recently with one of the CCAs includes grant writing under the CCA’s non-profit status and the efficient sharing of some admin and overhead.

If the Parks Board assumes control over revenue and programming, my assumption is that this community group will simply cut all ties to the CCA and go it alone rather than deal with the Kafkaesque nightmare the Parks Board appears determined to inflict upon them.

Currently, the community group writes their operating grants and submits them under the CCA’s non-profit number. The CCA gets the grants and administers the money for the community group’s purposes as per the legal conditions of the grant.

Under Vision’s proposed new system, what will happen? As I understand it, the community group writes the grant, the CCA submits it and receives the funds as usual. But then, the CCA will be forced to hand the funds over to the City revenue department, which will then funnel the money to the Parks Board, which will then have to approve the (re)distribution of funds back to the CCA, and then finally, after thoroughly being laundered through the City’s bureaucratic morass, the money will make its way to the community group that it was earmarked for all along (no doubt after an “admin fee” is charged by the City and a number of interest-bearing months have passed).

Again, my assumption is that the group will decide to take its 1000+ members, its scores of volunteers (some of whom do double-duty for the CCA), and its 6 figure operating revenues, and apply for non-profit status rather than be subject to Parks Board’s whims.

At this point, a decades-old partnership that includes cost-efficiencies and mutually beneficial resource sharing will go kaput.

For what?

Vision thinks it can control those 6-figure operating revenues just because they are included in the CCA’s operating budget, but it can’t legally redistribute them anywhere else because of the binding conditions of the grant. The big CCA pie they want to slice up and use as they see fit will shrink by quite a chunk, the cost-efficiencies will disappear, and the mutually beneficial fundraising power and resource sharing that this partnership facilitates will disappear overnight.

I have no idea if there are other 3rd party partnerships like this in the city, but if there are, I would expect all these subsidiary groups to turn their backs on the Parks Board’s new system and take their operating revenues, cost efficiencies, and formidable fundraising and volunteer power along with them as well.

All that will be left of these unique partnerships is a landlord-tenant agreement, and a much weaker sense of community.

The added costs due to the efficiencies lost will result in higher fees to our members.

It will make the CCA immeasurably weaker and less able to raise funds or recruit volunteers.

And the Parks Board will not capture a dime of the operating revenues, which means the taxpayer will eventually foot the bill for the “equitable redistribution” they are trying to achieve.

Does that really sound like the public’s best interest is being served?

@sv

Very interesting. But can you please clarify: Is that a fact, for sure? Or is that just your impression, and you aren’t really sure? Thanks.

While it is certainly correct that the City has title to the land and buildings that these community centres occupy, it does not own the assets of the community associations.

In the event that the City does pull the plug on the JOAs, what will they do with half empty buildings? What good is the fitness centre at Kerrisdale, if the Kerrisdale Community Association removes all of the equipment that was bought and maintained with the Association’s money? How will the Park Board replace the revenue that Associations earn from non-recreation programming?

As private corporations, owned by their members, the Community Associations will be free to use their assets as they see fit–and there is absolutely no assurance that the Park Board will be the beneficiary of those assets.

Of course, if the Park Board’s goal is to cut down the number of centres that it has to run, then this is a very effective way of going about that.

@ James Gill #235:

“In the event that the City does pull the plug on the JOAs, what will they do with half empty buildings?”

All good questions. I don’t have any knowledge of the details as to who owns what and what the CCA’s plan to do with their equipment in the event they termination takes effect, but I suspect the outcome will be bad for everyone. FB’s use of the word “divorce” in her post starting this thread seems apt.