125 responses so far ↓

• 1 spartikus // Feb 13, 2013 at 9:43 am

  There are two issues.

  The legalities.

  The optics.

  Can’t speak to the first, but to the second [whether Ballem's action was legal and within precedent or no], Carr won the morning. And lost the afternoon.

  The headline on the Sun and elsewhere is now some variation of “Carr backtracks/apologises”.

  She went too far in her language assigning motive.

  The opposition in this town always tries for a touchdown on 1st down. It’s a long game.

• 2 waltyss // Feb 13, 2013 at 9:48 am

  You kind of knew where it was going when Ms. Carr chose Mr. Baker to give a “legal” opinion. If she was really interested in a legal opinion, she would not have chosen someone with skin in the game (in this case a known NPA supporter). There are all sorts of municipal lawyers around who could give a truly objective legal opinion about the role fo the City Manager under the Vancouver Charter and any applicable bylaws.
  That City Managers exercise and have exercised a lot of control over council budgets will not, of course, keep the usual Ballem haters from piling on.
  The more interesting issue is the comment from the Mayor, quoted in an article in today’s Province, about working with the City Manager to get Councillor Carr’s motion into a more acceptable form and probably to determine whether it was more appropriate to an in camera meeting. Certainly, the question she was attempting to address is a legitimate one. Before you start down a new path that is bound to elicit the pushback that has occurred, should you not have as good an idea as possible about the potential implications of your moves for programming (controlled by the CCA’s and the Parks Board and budgets (controlled by Council).
  That said I would think that for it to be an honest assessment, as you go into negotiations you would want it to be confidential.

• 3 Stuart Mackinnon // Feb 13, 2013 at 10:25 am

  I think you got it right when you said in the past staff would provide “advice/warnings”. They wouldn’t deny it being put on the order paper. This could have been avoided if it was simply placed on the orders with the advice. Then Council could have dealt with it as they saw fit (in this case it was pretty well known that it would be ruled out of order). However, the Vision Councillors took great delight in their sanctimonious outrage directed at Cllr Carr. To me that spoke much louder than the actual ruling by the mayor.

• 4 Jak King // Feb 13, 2013 at 10:31 am

  You say that other lawyers have different interpretations. If so, let’s see them. While coloured in rhetorical language, the Baker & Baker opinion seems based solidly on the Charter, the city’s Admin By-Law and common sense. Ad hominem attacks on Baker simply avoid dealing with the substance of his arguments.

• 5 Morven // Feb 13, 2013 at 10:35 am

  Stuart has it right.

  I can see confidential commercial information being kept confidential. In this case, this was public money, directly and indirectly, so where is the confidentiality need?

  The public interest calls for the information not to be kept confidential. The bargaining power of the Parks Board calls for it to be kept secret to maintain bargaining dominance over the CCA’s.

  So where is the public interest ?

  I support Ms. Carr.
  -30-

• 6 teririch // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:06 am

  Didn’t a similar scenerio play out back in 2008(?) when Vision went public with the Oly Village financing during ‘sensitive’ negotiations with the ‘lender’ and the NPA had requested them not to – in order to not jeopardize the those negotiations?

  So why is the ‘taxpayer’ not entitled to know about these goings on – after all, we could be on the hook for a lot of dollars in the long run.

• 7 gman // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 am

  Anybody see Meggs on Global last night refer to Carrs apology as a “groveling apology”
  What a childish statement,this guy is a real piece of work isn’t he?

• 8 Morven // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:21 am

  Citizens of Vancouver (CCA) negotiating with the citizens of Vancouver (Parks Board).

  And it has to be held in secret?

  Where is the confidentiality need?

  VISION needs reminding that the public interest, that is transparency and accountability, is paramount.
  -30-

• 9 ThinkOutsideABox // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:23 am

  Agree with spartikus about how the optics played.

  The story with Vancouver Sun and News1130, perhaps others, yesterday became how Adrianne Carr backtracked, having to apologize to the City Manager while Geoff Meggs suggesting Adrianne should be investigated for breaching code of conduct.

  The apology was due to Carr revealing an email from Ballem, not for the original motion or for acquiring the legal opinion. But local notoriously yellow journalism that passes for coverage of civic issues and governance conflated both to create the story.

  The chain of events tend to go like this:

  1. thin edge of the wedge story targeting Vision Vancouver captures media interest

  2. Vision Vancouver strategizes the counter points to advance the narrative in their favour or damage the opponent/opposing view

  3. party insiders/operatives/communications workers propagate the advanced narrative like repetitive retweet bots on various media

  4. Frances weighs in to add another angle (i.e. in this case that Judy Rogers used to do this too)

  5. Allan Garr then writes some additional pontification

  6. Charlie Smith questions the hypocrisy of government

  7. general public remains relatively uninterested, uninformed and cynical

  8. no one questions how our democracy is being short-circuited when the city’s agenda has been ceded to hired “yes” people, with the public only expected to have a say every three years at election time.

  Lather, rinse, repeat. Did I miss a beat?

• 10 waltyss // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:25 am

  I hadn’t actually read Mr. Baker’s opinion when I posted my earlier comment and now, having done so, am only strengthened in my view. He was a poor choice.
  The “opinion” is a combination of legal opinion and polemic. Polemic is the greater part of the opinion.
  Of the parts that are actually legal opinion, at least some aspects are not as obvious as he seems to suggest. Key among those is whether the subject matter falls within the subject of negotiations that should be in camera. At a minimum, Mr. Baker’s opinion is one on which reasonable people may differ and I expect is one where the city solicitor would have a different opinion.
  The optics, as spartikus points out, are something else. The City Manager’s language in saying she was disallowing the motion was ill advised. However, there is no question that the City Manager advises on the propriety and otherwise of matters before Council.

• 11 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:46 am

  Thought of The Day

  “Deja Vu is a Bitch… that lives at City Hall!”

  In response to Charlie’s…

  http://www.straight.com/news/351626/did-you-hear-any-guffaws-when-mayor-condemned-attacks-city-staff

  Thanks Charlie for this memento.
  Duh! Vision Vancouver Civic cleansing is complete! Detox 100%. All Kosher… Who knew, eh?

  4 (FOUR!) years ago I wrote this (updated since) on Frances Bula’s blog:
  …………….
  glissando remmy // Mar 13, 2009 at 11:15 pm

  The original piece, then called “10 Little Injuns”, was written by songwriter Septimus Winner in 1868 for a minstrel show and was much more elaborate.
  “Ten Little Indians” is a modern children’s rhyme (sometimes “soldier boys” or “teddy bears” is used instead of Indians to avoid offense). The song, supra, is usually performed to the Irish folk tune “Michael Finnegan”.
  The rhyme was notable for being the inspiration for Agatha Christie’s “And Then There Were None”.
  The disturbing events of the past months made City Hall insiders to cry in amazement and obliged me to revisit this beautifully crafted poem.
  I felt a civic obligation to bring it back to life in a new adapted form in sync with the dry suffocating wind that blows mercilessly from the City of Vancouver’s third floor.
  Ladies and Gentlemen,
  Please allow me the honor to introduce to you in premiere the new Vancouver adaptation…

  “Ten Little Managers”

  Ten Little Managers going out to dine
  Estelle choked her little self and then there were
  Nine
  Nine Little Managers sat up very late
  Judy overslept herself and then there were
  Eight
  Eight Little Managers travelling to Devon;
  Jody got left behind and then there were
  Seven
  Seven Little Managers chopping up sticks
  Dave chopped himself in half and then there were
  Six
  Six Little Managers playing with a hive
  A bumblebee stung Ark and then there were
  Five
  Five Little managers going in for law
  James, got into chancery and then there were
  Four
  Four Little Managers going out to sea
  A red herring swallowed Tom and then there were
  Three
  Three Little Managers walking in the Zoo
  A big bear hugged Brent and then there were
  Two
  Two Little Managers playing with a Taser gun
  (Your name here) shot the other and then there was
  One
  One Little Manager looked at herself in the mirror
  Then, Penny “apologetically” yelled wheezy…

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy!

  PS Note:
  (To be framed and hanged in a noticeable place in every Senior Manager’s office for future reference and as reminder of the times they live in)

• 12 ThinkOutsideABox // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:46 am

  …with apologies to Councillor Carr for misspelling her name above, it should be one “n” in Adriane.

  Note to Vision party hacks: my apology to the Councillor for misspelling her name should not be conflated as an apology and retraction for every other point made in that post.

• 13 JamieLee // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:51 am

  Frances that is quite some attack on the integrity of Mr Baker. He gave an expert legal opinion based on administrative law. I think it highly improper for a journalist to question legal experts as you have done. His politics and whether he likes or dislikes Vision has no bearing on this matter. I think you owe Mr Baker an apology. And just so we are clear the Mayor in his ruling ordered Councillor Carr’s motion out of order based on negotiations between Park Board and Community Centres being confidential. That is very strange considering that a public document being put forward for negotiations was tabled at the Park Board meeting and voted on by Park Board in open meeting. Therefore those negotiations are now in the domain of the public interest and as such can’t be hidden away under the pretext of confidentiality.

• 14 Mark Vulliamy // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:54 am

  As the world’s last remaining non-expert in legal matters I should hesitate to wade into this discussion. However, a couple of observations:
  Unless I missed something, the Charter is silent on the duties of the City Manager, although it does reference those of the City Clerk, Director of Finance etc.
  The Charter enables Council, by 2/3 vote, to delegate any of its executive or administrative powers to an employee of the City; otherwise Council gives direction and the City Manager ensures that this direction is carried out by staff and outcomes are reported back.
  City Manager’s may – and often do – give advice as to whether a motion is in order or not or whether an issue before Council should be dealt with in camera (and the conditions for this are explicitly laid out in the Charter). As well, the City Manager is the gatekeeper of information from Staff to Council, which gives her or him a very powerful influence on civic governance. However, it is unprecedented for the City Manager – or any staff person – to disallow a seconded motion by a Councillor from being on the Council agenda.
  Because Staff are theoretically removed from the political process, they are protected by the City’s code of conduct, prohibiting Councillors from attacking or reflecting negatively on City staff. So if the Mayor and some Councillors choose to criticize Ms. Carr for contravening the code they should be consistent and ensure that Ms. Ballem does not again place herself in the political arena.

• 15 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2013 at 12:04 pm

  No gman #7,
  Geoff Meggs is a sweet Piece of Strudel…
  Morven #8
  “Citizens of Vancouver (CCA) negotiating with the citizens of Vancouver (Parks Board).
  And it has to be held in secret?”
  Exactly!
  Ballem and Vision cohorts need to join Iceholeics Anonymous. IMHO they should feel lucky and privileged and humble that The City handed these jobs over to them.
  Unfortunately they feel The City should be the one feeling happy for having them!
  How do one say Jerks in Italian?
  Oh, wait… Tonto!
  TOAB #9
  Excellent timeline!
  Bullets 4 & 5 are a scream! Expected, and both coming from the right writers. No bias there…
  Bullets 7 & 8 covers rather perfectly the public’s ignorance. Ballem & Company live to see another Council meeting.
  You did not miss a beat!

• 16 gman // Feb 13, 2013 at 12:28 pm

  Jeez Glissy now I will never be able to eat strudel again,like people see Jesus on a piece of toast Meggs will be in my strudel !!!

• 17 teririch // Feb 13, 2013 at 1:27 pm

  The sad thing with Meggs – nothing he says truly surprises me anymore – is arrogance and surpreme as*ery know no limits.

  Let’s all just hope that the predictions that if elected Dix will take him into the fold – the ‘inner circle’ don’t come to reality.

  Meggs is sad enough, bad enough to have to deal with and listen to on the municipal level, can you imagine him at the provincial level?

  Scary.

• 18 Dan Cooper // Feb 13, 2013 at 1:39 pm

  Hmmm….confidentiality regarding financial issues is appropriate (if ever!) when there is private information that needs to be kept away from competitors. In this case, where the only players are the City Council/Parks Board and the Community Associations, apparently the “competitors” are the voters/taxpayers.

  (Until I read this post, I was actually leaning towards the idea that the dynamic around this was changing and the powers-that-be were likely leaning toward honest and open negotiations. Ah well, so much for that. As for me, I have not been a fan of Vision in the past but voted for a goodly number of their candidates as lesser evils/relative goods. No more; I would rather not vote for anyone.)

• 19 Dan Cooper // Feb 13, 2013 at 1:41 pm

  p.s. I just have to wonder: if the City Manager can veto anything she wants before it is even discussed by council, that is a really scary thought.

• 20 Threadkiller // Feb 13, 2013 at 2:09 pm

  I’ve sat on a few boards of directors in my time, and chaired meetings of up to 100 people, and while I realize that Vancouver City Council frequently seems to be operating in an alternate universe, based on my experience it seems to me that it’s one thing for a city bureaucrat to advise or warn Councillors as to whether their proposed motion is in order or not. One of the essential functions of bureaucrats is to advise politicians on matters being considered by the governing body of which they are a part. It’s quite another thing to dictate to a councillor that his or her motion will not be considered. That decision is not up to the bureaucrat in question. They can (and should) only advise. It’s up to the person who sets the Council agenda: The chair of the Council meeting, i.e. the Mayor or his/her designated deputy, to make the decision re a motion’s appropriateness. If necessary the motion can be referred to a parliamentarian or other consulting authority for consideration.There’s a clear line of demarcation in this matter, and Ballem crossed it.

• 21 Dan Cooper // Feb 13, 2013 at 2:12 pm

  Clicked through to the Sun article Frances cites in her twitter feed and noted that one of the comments at the bottom wonders whether Vision is the NDPs farm team and the NDP government will be like Vision. Happily, I would not count on it since the three current or former elected Visionistas who wanted to be NDP candidates – Meggs, Chow and Barnes – all lost their nomination races. (Chow did eventually become a candidate without opposition, elsewhere.) What was especially interesting to me was that they were not beaten by any particular demographic of opponent. Meggs lost to a labour and ecological organization leader, Barnes to a technology entrepreneur, and Chow to a journalist and small floral business owner. The moral to me seems to be, whatever Vision is doing just is not selling well, at least with the average NDP member.

• 22 Glissando Remmy // Feb 13, 2013 at 4:15 pm

  Another Thought of The Day

  “If Vancouver City Council would be the UNSC – United Nations Security Council, Ballem would veto because she’s Mother Russia; Gregor would second because he likes China; Vision dominated Council then would vote accordingly because they are the Council from Togo.”

  They would rather see Vancouver as Syria, and let it go to pieces.
  Not that there is a single one who cares, as long as they can keep ordering people around, have personal secretaries, and pocket a healthy remuneration + perks, it’s all good.
  Another day at the office … another buck.

  Oh, I almost forgot …

  He’s like W W II France,
  Geoff is his name.
  Vichy is his stance,
  Collaborationism his game.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 23 boohoo // Feb 13, 2013 at 4:25 pm

  Again, glad you guys aren’t over-reacting.

• 24 Jonathan Baker // Feb 13, 2013 at 4:49 pm

  Mark Vulliamy Feb 13, 2013 at 11:54 am
  notes ” Unless I missed something, the Charter is silent on the duties of the City Manager.

  Under the Vancouver Charter the City Manager is actually called the “Board of Administration.” There were until TEAM got elected two members of the Board. TEAM renamed the position to City Manager but did not bother to amend the Vancouver Charter. That is why you could not find reference to the Board.

  Cllr Carr distributed the full 10 page opinion. She also handed out a short version which deleted most of the citations and quotes from the bylaws and charter.

  The Sections of the Charter that apply are as follows:

  s. 161. Delegation of powers
  s. 162 set up of Board of Administration limiting powerrs to executive or administrative, its jurisdiction, procedures etc.
  s.164.1 Meeting Procedures. Council must by bylaw establish procedures.
  s. 164.1(2) procedures can only be amended by an amending bylaw.
  165,1 Gen rule that meetings must be open to the public.
  165.2 Meetings that may or must be closed.
  165.3 Requirements respecting closed meetings
  489 Powers of the Parks Board and powers of City Council respecting PB.
  Board of Admin Bylaw 4017
  Procedure Bylaw 9756

  I have not yet checked the Charter as to whether it authorizes a code of ethics that limits criticism of staff.

  Jonathan Baker

• 25 Mark Vulliamy // Feb 13, 2013 at 5:00 pm

  Jonathan @ 24. Thanks for this historical perspective. I am fairly conversant with the Charter, especially the Park Board related sections, but there is always more to learn. As to the “code of ethics”, whether or not it is authorized by the Charter, it does safeguard staff from unwarranted attack in a context where they are unable to defend themselves. Which speaks to the need for them not to intrude into that context.

• 26 Jonathan Baker // Feb 13, 2013 at 5:05 pm

  One further comment. Although I appreciate Jamie Lee’s kind remarks, I did not in any way consider your comments, Francis, to be a criticism or an attack. You correctly noted that I am not fond of VISION (although I was one of the first people to publicly endorse Gregor when he ran for his first term.) You got a second opinion. I wish other journalists would have the integrity to do that. That person confirmed that I was right since you state.

  “So far, one of my background set of experts I rely on, a longtime municipal politician, told me that it wouldn’t be left to the city manager at his council. Instead, a motion like that would be presented and it would be council that would decide whether it should be moved to an in-camera session.”

  The truth is that there really are no two sides to this one. Everyone’s instincts are correct that legislative powers can not be delegated. The line may be subtle but it is profoundly important. Advising a Mayor that a motion is out of order is totally different from refusing to deliver the motion to the Clerk and preventing the clerk from putting it on the agenda.

• 27 Mary // Feb 13, 2013 at 7:09 pm

  hear,, hear, Jonathan Baker #26. As an old timer, I recall former City Manager Fritz Bowers helping Councils of his day (of various stripes and more often than not, contentious) formulate appropriate motions so they could actually get their differing opinions out in the open and debated in a focused, transparent way. It was inspiring and made me proud to be a public servant. Fritz never vetoed a staff report, never even altered the major content as is done regularly today by this administration. Today no report on any substantive policy issue even sees the light of day until the content is acceptable to the City Manager. Nothing controversial gets past first base. Democracy’s loss. All our loss.

• 28 Richard // Feb 13, 2013 at 9:11 pm

  @Mary

  Nothing controversial? Seriously? Finally things that are controversial are being acted on instead of just ignoring problems for decades as previous councils did.

• 29 brilliant // Feb 13, 2013 at 9:52 pm

  @Stuart Mackinnon 3-certainly Meggs’ comments were a bullying form of intimidation. I wouldn’t be surprised to see Carr top the council polls in 2014.

• 30 jenables // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:05 pm

  I take it you, Richard, welcome the atmosphere of secrecy and the fake public consultations? Is there only one opinion that matters, when the effects are far-reaching? do you question the effectiveness of democracy and do you find it inconvenient?

• 31 Richard // Feb 13, 2013 at 11:44 pm

  @jenables

  That is not what I said. Please don’t misrepresent what others say or put words in their mouths (or keyboards).

• 32 Sandy Garossino // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:10 am

  Without questioning the merits of Jonathan Baker’s opinion, it may have been prudent to solicit the views of counsel who are perceived as independent.

  Having said that, good governance adheres to practices that go beyond rules and legal formalities. One of which is to avoid direct conflict between elected councillors and staff wherever possible.

  The smooth functioning of a civil service relies a great deal on public confidence in its neutrality. Whether based on a polite fiction or the genuine article, this confidence should be preserved by conventions that keep civil servants out of the line of fire.

• 33 jenables // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:21 am

  Richard- I’m not a fan of what’s going on these days, I can only assume you are based on your comment. boohoo may chime in to say it’s hyperbole, but I’m deeply, deeply disturbed by some of the changes I’ve seen recently, as summarized by my response to you. I’m not trying to attack you, but praising the ham fisted manner in which “things are getting done” brings other questions to the forefront, as posed to you above.

• 34 Morven // Feb 14, 2013 at 7:40 am

  Lawyers (I am not one) often opine on a test of reasonableness or a test of correctness of a decision.

  In the circumstances, were the actions of Ms. Ballem or Ms. Carr reasonable or correct?

  None of the arguments advanced by Ms Ballem seem either reasonable or correct or in keeping with the model of a municipal government.

  On the other hand, Ms. Carr’s actions seen both reasonable and correct.

  As it stands, municipal councils are not advisory boards who make recommendations to staff who then get to decide on what is the correct action/position.

  It is entirely the opposite.

  It may be messy, it occasionally may be ineffective, but that is the democratic model.

  If we now have a new model of municipal government, the least VISION could do, is to advise the voters of this change so we, the voters (stakeholders) can decide what model they prefer.
  -30-

• 35 boohoo // Feb 14, 2013 at 8:47 am

  Since you ask jenables…

  ‘Deeply disturbed by some of the changes’

  That’s fine and reasonable.

  Taking Richard’s post and extrapolating it to what you initially said–Not reasonable.

  That’s my issue with all of this. Everyone’s reaction is so over the top. Especially given all the misinformation on all sides. I still don’t know who is telling what truths, what money counts for this or that, etc… It’s all so bundled up in this hyper-aggressive storm of bs I have little confidence of anything productive at this point.

• 36 Andrew Browne // Feb 14, 2013 at 10:45 am

  My experience with municipal solicitors is that if you ask 5 of them for an opinion you’ll (sometimes) receive 10 different opinions.

• 37 Dan Cooper // Feb 14, 2013 at 10:59 am

  @boohoo:

  I do not think it is an “over-reacti[on]” when what we are responding to is a continuing attitude attitude and behaviour on the part of Vision members of both Council and Park Board represented by but far from limited to the example quoted below the line below. As I commented on an earlier thread, I spent some months feeling unable to decide or even comment on this issue as I could see both sides and many aspects – right up until the point where Vision went completely over the edge on: a) “This is about the rich areas like [laughably!] Killarney and Hastings keeping money and services away from poor people”; and ever more clearly b) “We have already made up our minds and are going to smash all opposition, so you had better surrender now and pretend to like it.”

  —————

  from http://www.canada.com/news/Community+centres+protest+Vancouver+park+board+plan/7895803/story.html

  Another evening meeting was held at Killarney Community Centre, where the gathering turned ugly when Vision Vancouver commissioner Trevor Loke addressed the crowd in what can best be described as a tirade. Loke began by thanking the crowd for showing up, but those platitudes quickly turned into a rant about the inequalities between poor associations and their rich counterparts in communities like Killarney.

  Loke’s comments caused the crowd, made up largely of blue-collar workers, seniors, immigrants and young families, to react with shouts and boos of disapproval.

  Following Loke’s comments, a man stood up and asked the young commissioner why he thought it was reasonable to “scream at us like kids.”

  “Who the hell do you think you are,” the man yelled at Loke.

  ——-

  Frankly, if anyone should be making an “abject apology” here it should be Trevor Loke and his co-members of Vision. Actually, he should resign in disgrace.

• 38 gman // Feb 14, 2013 at 11:16 am

  Richard#28
  You have completely misrepresented or spun what Mary said.When she said nothing controversial gets by first base I think she means anything that would be controversial to Visions agenda never sees the light of day.

• 39 spartikus // Feb 14, 2013 at 11:17 am

  Allen Garr’s latest has a real ring of truth to it to this observer, and provides insight/context on his last article too.

• 40 Dan Cooper // Feb 14, 2013 at 11:19 am

  Going back again and watching the video from Killarney, it is in fact notable how restrained and respectful the response to Loke’s increasing rant is. There is no apparent booing or noise from the crowd in attendance until Loke finishes. Also interesting seeing Loke mistake, initially, the name of the centre where he was speaking (he initially calls it Kerrisdale before correcting himself), and that he says explicitly that not being able to use your Access Card (which in most cases only gives you a discount on whatever the usual rate might be at a particular centre/activity) is not being able to use a centre at all. Ridiculous. Again, Loke should resign.

• 41 Dan Cooper // Feb 14, 2013 at 11:30 am

  @spartikus:

  I usually don’t read Garr’s columns, but he definitely brings out at least one good point here (and likely more): Just because a centre board has agreed to negotiate does not by any means show – as Vision and some writers have suggested – that that centre board agrees with or likes the proposals that Vision is pushing or the ways (such as limiting negotiations to three weeks) that Vision wants to go about it.

• 42 B // Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 am

  Dan Cooper, you’ve just described every negotiation ever made. Two groups with different intended outcomes come together to find common ground and a suitable (sometimes barely palatable) middle ground/solution.

  You could have just as easily written: Just because the Park Board has agreed to negotiate does not mean that they agree with or like the proposals that the CCAs are pushing.

  What is most important in any negotiation is the intention to negotiate in good faith. I think it’s clear that the Park Board and the majority of CCAs (15 out of 20) are sitting down in good faith to hammer out a suitable solution. The very vocal group that aren’t sitting down to negotiate are the outliers here, and they are making the most noise about it, as is their intent. The Jesse Johls of this city are far more interested in noisy criticism than negotiated settlements, it seems.

• 43 gman // Feb 14, 2013 at 11:59 am

  What Vision has decided to do rather than try and help the centers that are lagging they decided to drag the successful centers down with a redistribution agenda and throwing all the hard working volunteers under the bus.
  This seems more like an example of the Hegelian Dialectic,they created a controversy where none existed before in order to take control and move their agenda forward.This fiasco they created has much more to do with control than money.If it was only about money the obvious thing to do would be to find a way to lift the lagging ones up,but instead their trying to drag the successful ones down.

• 44 spartikus // Feb 14, 2013 at 12:11 pm

  I usually don’t read Garr’s columns

  Well that’s too bad, because he certainly is in with at least one faction at Court and provides insight into what they are thinking. Even if you disagree with them, or dislike them, it’s important to keep yourself informed.

  In this case, some are not happy.

  My last observation on all this will be that while the implementation may have been heavy-handed/botched, it would be a real mistake of those opposing to underestimate the appeal of providing equitable levels of service across the community centre system to the public at large.

  I’m sensing the same mistake starting to be made as was done with bike lanes and chicken coops, where people mistook their personal anger, and the anger of their peers or in an auditorium, as universal anger.

  Which was not reflected at voting time. Some were surprised. They may be again.

  But we’ll see.

• 45 Dave Pasin // Feb 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm

  @B#42

  While I would agree that 2 groups who are negotiating have a responsibility to come to an agreement in the interests of their stakeholders, what we are seeing here goes beyond that.

  The fact is only 11 of the 22 centres are now included in the CCA group willing to negotiate with the VPB. 4 have withdrawn for various reasons.

  The CCA’s were told over and over that the VPB position was not negotiable. Only late into a 9 hour meeting did the GM of the VPB state that they are willing to negotiate. (A position taken after what was clearly an angry audience demanded a straightfoward answer). Previous to that, the VPB wanted a 3 week negotiation period in which they stated ” I am prepared to enter into a concentrated negotiation process lasting up to 3 weeks. The discussions should be led by a mutually-agreed upon professional facilitator.

  The Park Board’s main priorities would be focused on an describing an appropriate funding model which will deliver on the 4 principles and future Park Board policy directions, achieving acceptable Human Resources alignment and the implementation of Core Programs. ”

  They have moved off that 3 week period and stated they want their entire package to begin implimentation by 1 July, 2013. This is hardly a fair position from which to begin.

  The group of MyVancouverCommunity Centres (outliers as they have been referred to) don’t agree with a firm deadline so that negotiations can move forward as required so as to achieve an equitable agreement. In addition, they are not opposed to common core programs, “equity” or access. They also would like to see a cost sharing model with the VPB which would allow each centre to retain control of their programming so they can keep serving their communities appropriately.

  Further the meetings they have organized have served to inform the public of the intent of the VPB and their masters at City Hall and brought an important issue to the public.

  Lost in all the rhetoric is the simple fact that there is no way the VPB proposal as outlined could cover the costs of all the subsidized and free programs the CCA’s provide for children, adults and seniors. Nor is there any reference to the increased costs that will be associated with the increased personnel that will be required if the VPB were to control programming.

  This is a very serious issue as we have seen at every level of government when revenues don’t meet expectations cuts ensue. It won’t be any different here.

  Bottom line, this is all about access to a pool of money. A pool that looks enticing because of the fees charged by each of the CCA’s for programs they operate and fund. Fees which go towards subsidizing a raft of other committments to their users and the VPB which include programs, equipment, fittings, repairs and maintenance and a host of other expenditures devoted to their users and centres.

• 46 waltyss // Feb 14, 2013 at 12:39 pm

  @Dan Cooper. There is no question but that Trevor Loke embarasses himself at the Killarney meeting. Unfortunately, not the first politician of whatever political stripe to do so. Our premier seems to do it on an almost daily basis.
  At the same time, the refusal of CCA’s like Kerrisdale and Killarnet to come to the table is childish behaviour of the sort that one encounters in elementary schoolyards where a kid with the bat and the ball says others cannot play unless they do so by his rules.
  There are two important issues at play:
  a) the CCA’s provide a valuable service and should not become the baby being thrown out with the bathwater;
  b) this is the Vancouver parks and recreation system, not the Dunbar and Hillcrest and West End parks and recreation system. Access, cost, programming, etc. should be at least roughly equal throughout the system.
  How one brings those two into synch is the challenge and I do not pretend to know what the optimum result should be. I still like the idea mentionned by Bula in an earlier thread of the PB charging the CCA’s a rent for community centre use and using that money to support programming at community centres that don’t have the same resources. Haven’t really heard an answer to that.
  Also, it seems that there should be a core body of programming that should be available throughout, even if not necessarily at each community centre.
  And while there is little doubt that the PB and PB Commissioners have handled this abysmally (I didn’t exactly think that de Genova and Coupar distinguished themselves at the West End meeting either), the time has come to get down to negotiations.
  For the CCA’s that don’t want to take part, well, they have their chance and if an agreement is reached with the others, in my view the outliers should then be advised that they can sign the agreement reached or vacate the building.
  Mr. Cooper. As you don’t read Garr, I guess you limit yourself to the Province editorial page and Glissy the NPA troll. I guess that way you get a consistent viewpoint.

• 47 Dave Pasin // Feb 14, 2013 at 12:45 pm

  #44 Spartikus

  I think that your assumption that the opposition has overplayed it’s hand may be premature.

  Unlike chicken coops and bike lanes, the VPB proposal is a fundamental change in the operation and business of the Park Board and Community Centres that effect 100′s of thousands of users of Community Centres across the system.

  The heavy handedness and ham fistedness by the City manager as well as the VPB lead one to believe (correctly or incorrectly)
  that there is more going on behind the scenes than is being released and only serves to muddy the waters of the real objective is… equity and fairness of access or is it really “all about the money”.

  the only way to tell will be to see where the negotiations with either party lead to.

  As the mayor and Vision Council try to distance themselves further and further from this debacle

• 48 teririch // Feb 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm

  …..’At the same time, the refusal of CCA’s like Kerrisdale and Killarnet to come to the table is childish behaviour of the sort that one encounters in elementary schoolyards where a kid with the bat and the ball says others cannot play unless they do so by his rules.’

  ****

  This more describes VV and their parks board members tactics vs. the community centres.

• 49 gasp // Feb 14, 2013 at 12:52 pm

  Jonathan Baker has now published a more comprehensive version of his opinion at:
  http://jonathan-baker.blogspot.ca/

  I doubt any experienced municipal lawyers in this City would contradict Mr. Baker’s opinion since it comprehensively outlines the applicable law – and I note that NONE have done so to date.

  Which leads me to ask why the City Solicitor is counseling/advising City Council to ignore and/or break the law? Isn’t he under a duty to uphold the law? Does he have a valid legal opinion, or is he just flying by the seat of his pants?

  Perhaps the City solicitor is banking on the fact that there’s no effective remedy for this abuse of power, since it’s very costly for the public to bring a lawsuit against the City.

• 50 gman // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:02 pm

  Waltyss 46
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=uq-v1TTUyhM

• 51 Morven // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:03 pm

  There are three elements that distinguish this process.

  One, there is information asymmetry. The PB has far more data at it’s disposal than do the CCA’s. So much for an open and transparent process. Or balanced mediation.

  Two, the issue, unlike bike lanes, effects a very broad spectrum of citizens. Many, especially recent immigrants find a focus through the programs at their nearest CC.

  And three, and I stand to be corrected, there does not appear to be any common guideline for accounting for costs, income across the CCA’s. Having a common set of accounting guidelines might make the negotiating process more transparent.
  -30-

• 52 Dan Cooper // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:20 pm

  B (Feb 14, 2013 at 11:45 am) writes, “Dan Cooper, you’ve just described every negotiation ever made. Two groups with different intended outcomes come together to find common ground and a suitable (sometimes barely palatable) middle ground/solution.”

  Don’t tell me, tell the Park Board and City Council members who keep saying quite explicitly that the fact that a board is negotiating with them means that that board accepts what they are proposing. (Loke says this in his diatribe.) For that matter, tell the various scribes who essentially or explicitly say the same thing, presumably due either to lack of analysis or simply parroting the above-mentioned politicians.

• 53 Silly Season // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:20 pm

  @sparty #39

  Worthwhile to print the Garr column in full, methinks. See it below.

  (And would say that Vision director’s Stepan Vdovine’s nasty Twitter tweet of late last night is just one more example of the party’s continuing development of a rather surprising public communications ‘tin ear’. *clang!*

  How ’bout we have access to your e-mails, too, on this matter Stepan? #PotMeetKettle).

  A response to his tweet from someone I would guess is a fairly ‘typical’ Vision supporter shows how the rabid ‘nasty’ approach is rightfully getting some pushback from ‘not the usual suspects’.

  Here’s the Garr piece. Looks like the Park Board commissionars have to take one for the home team…

  Old Vision Vancouver hands raging over park board mess

  By Allen Garr, Columnist February 14, 2013 10:12 AM

  Just so you know: a battle has been raging for the past couple of weeks in the back rooms of Vancouver’s governing party. A number of old Vision Vancouver hands are livid over the damage being caused to the party’s reputation particularly among its own supporters by the park board’s assault on community centres and the blow back in the community.

  There is no clear winner yet on that one although there has been movement.

  This week, Vision board member Maria Dobrinskaya, appearing in her regular city hall panel slot on CBC Radio’s The Early Edition, conceded that the shenanigans of the past few months have been destructive to whatever good will existed between community centre volunteer boards and the Vision-dominated park board.

  This week, too, a senior Vision insider at city hall made this observation: the attempt by the park board to control revenues raised by those volunteer boards and manage programs at their centres was never part of Vision’s election platform. This was: Over the next three years, the Vision Vancouver park board will “focus on making programs affordable for everyone by introducing a pilot program of specific free-of-charge family days at recreation facilities and ensuring that the universal Flexipass and Leisure Access Cards are honoured at all Park Board facilities.”

  Most, if not all, of the community centre boards are already willing to negotiate these conditions; it wasn’t necessary to threaten to wipe them off the face of the earth. But that’s what happened when Vision threw the first punch. Here is how Trout Lake Community Centre board president Kate Perkins saw it unfold. She is one of the most onside with the park board’s desire to renegotiate the 40-year-old joint operating agreement (JOA).

  But first a bit of background. Rewriting the JOA has been on the agenda of the past few park boards. Vision operatives have been dealing with the matter for the past five years, increasingly annoyed at the surpluses building up in the coffers of some community centres while others went wanting.

  But the matter never got tackled. Until now.

  Which brings us to this process and the first punch. Park board general manager Malcolm Bromley arranged to meet with the presidents of the community centres last February to see, as Perkins says, “if we could land on something” that would work.

  But that cordial atmosphere abruptly ended when Bromley disappeared only to return with an ultimatum. “This is the deal” Perkins recalls him saying, and adding, “We hope you’ll be part of it. If not, we’ll find someone else” and replace your board. It was non-negotiable.

  The “deal” meant the community centre boards would lose control over programming and revenues.

  You can imagine how that went down. But the park board seemed unmoved by the building anger. And as Perkins says, when you “start getting (the more moderate) Dunbar, False Creek and Trout Lake boards angry, you’ve done something terribly wrong.”

  In January, community centre boards asked for a facilitator. Bromley responded with a demand the negotiations be settled in three weeks. Perkins and the rest rejected that as unreasonable.

  Then followed the ridiculous nine-hour park board meeting at the West End Community Centre that ran until 3:30 in the morning. It only served to inflame the public against the park board even more. In spite of that, the position of Bromley and the rest continued to shift as more community centres agreed to come to the table with the offer of a mediator or facilitator to help move things along.

  Where we are at right now is a bit of a pause for most community boards while a mediator or facilitator is being sought and approved. The issue of controlling revenues and programming is still the most contentious. Meanwhile, the most determined community boards are boycotting the process and using some of their surplus funds to launch a campaign and build public support against the park board.

  As for Vision Vancouver, the internal dispute continues. Even the most adamant Vision soldier will say they are doing the right thing, knowing full well the process has been deplorable and the whole exercise is costing them politically.

  Read more: http://www.vancourier.com/News+List+Vancouver+Courier/3084423/story.html#ixzz2KuT1o0VU

• 54 Dan Cooper // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:24 pm

  p.s. And of course, as others have noted, this only became a putative “negotiation” on the part of the Parks Board toward the end of the late night meeting just a few days ago. It was originally presented as a fait accompli. Actually, as I’ve also commented above, there was a period of a few days where I had the impression that the Vision politicians were bending and open to an actual, open and honest negotiation (though this would be difficult to achieve with the basis of threats and abuse they had put out earlier). Sadly, this impression has since been trampled.

• 55 Silly Season // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:25 pm

  PS if this was a purely Park Board driven initiative, why was the City Manager at meetings with the Park Board GM and the CC associations as stated elsewhere on the blog?

  Really. Does anyone believe that PB would be able to get any initiative signed off without first going through City Hall?

• 56 Morven // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:50 pm

  The trouble is the negotiation model that appears to have been adopted by the PB is a plea bargain settlement model, after one party pleads guilty.

  Had the started the process as a process between equal parties with no information asymmetry between them, there might have been a better outcome.
  -30-

• 57 Terry M // Feb 14, 2013 at 1:54 pm

  What a lot of BS shovelers this Vision Vancouver members are! During the past month or so it became apparent that they are catering to their own needs and to their own agenda. They DO NOT serve the public,they DO NOT listen to the public, they have an arrogant attitude, use character assassination against my dissenters and they clearly and effectively. Are trying to centralise all the municipal control in one office, that of the City manager, who is nothing that a Vision Vancouver appointee and servant. Welcome Vancouver’s Hollyhock. read about it in Solomon’ s Vancouver Otrivin.

• 58 waltyss // Feb 14, 2013 at 2:09 pm

  Dan Cooper @a53. You are half right. The PB did start out with an incredibly stupid and ill advised, take it or leave it. However, you are wrong when you say that “this only became a putative “negotiation” on the part of the Parks Board toward the end of the late night meeting just a few days ago”. The part about negotiations was part of Bromley’s presentation and copies of his presentation were handed out at the beginning of the meeting. The report and his recommendations were approved at the end of the meeting but isn’t that as it should be.
  The PB and others f*cked up royally on the way they have handled this even though the central issue is a valid one. For the anti-visionistas, who have been handed a great gift here, you would be well advised not to overplay your hand by contributing falsehoods.
  @gman, while you have never contributed nothing of any utility in the past, at least today, the fact that you called my posts idiotic, has confirmed for me that I am on the right track. Thank you.

• 59 waltyss // Feb 14, 2013 at 2:11 pm

  sorry, gman, that should read, “you have never contributed anything of any utility in the past”. Didn’t mean to misrepresent your history. Please forgive me.

• 60 gman // Feb 14, 2013 at 2:27 pm

  Waltyss you said ” in my view the outliers should then be advised that they can sign the agreement reached or vacate the building.”
  Sounds like….you vill sighn zee papers….sighn zee papers…
  So that’s your contribution Waltyss,along with your usual ad hom attacks.Nice.

• 61 teririch // Feb 14, 2013 at 2:45 pm

  From Metro Vancouver – FEb. 13, 2013

  ‘Have-not’ community has idea to solve Vancouver park board saga

  Sure, it’s down at the bottom on Vancouver park board’s “have-not” list, and yes, it’s all for a little more equality between community centres.

  But the Marpole-Oakridge Community Centre, the centre in Vancouver’s poorest neighbourhood according to a city ranking, still isn’t a big fan of the park board’s proposal to collect all the revenue and redistribute it to level the playing field.

  Instead, Marpole’s community association president Danny Yu is looking for a way forward with an idea for an alternative financial model – a middle ground that’s been largely absent from the saga between the board and the city’s 23 centres as they negotiate a new operating agreement.

  Yu suggests a taxing model where the board and associations come up with a formula where a percentage of revenue would go to the board based on size, programs or usage.

  The current model, where the associations don’t give up any revenue to the park board despite getting the buildings rent free, isn’t working perfectly, Yu said.

  “If you have a store in a shopping mall, you pay rent,” he offered as a comparison to his proposal. “That leaves a little bit for volunteers to continue to provide good programming, and the park board gets their money.”

  A similar idea was rejected about two years ago at an Association Presidents Group (APG) meeting, he said, but it will likely be more palatable since the board’s proposal to control all the revenue. Former park board commissioner Stuart Mackinnon proposed a similar idea in a recent blog post.

  Both APG chair Kate Perkins of Trout Lake and park board commissioner Niki Sharma did not want to discuss potential funding models as the matter will be negotiated at the bargaining table.

  “All ideas will be welcomed at the table. We will take a look to see what works to meet the goals of better equity and access,” Sharma said in an email.

• 62 waltyss // Feb 14, 2013 at 2:57 pm

  thank you, teririch, I for one think that that is a fairer and more useful model and one that addresses the issues.
  @gman, yes, I know that signing a contract is a particularly Nazi thing to do. I guess your care-aide is having another mental health day and there is no-one around to administer the meds. It seems that of late the aide is having to take a lot of mental health days. I wonder why that is?
  Oh, and just before the meds kick in , it’s ad hominem.

• 63 Dan Cooper // Feb 14, 2013 at 3:25 pm

  waltyss writes, “The part about negotiations was part of Bromley’s presentation and copies of his presentation were handed out at the beginning of the meeting.”

  I stand (actually, sit at present) corrected on the point of timing within the meeting!

• 64 Morven // Feb 14, 2013 at 3:34 pm

  I do not think the Parks Board could negotiate their way out of a brown paper bag.

  Why?

  For one, the Parks Board made a strategic choice among the options open to them. But they did it behind closed doors (or so it seems).

  They then present the new operating agreements strategy as a fait accompli and are shocked at the vocal response.

  Had they invited the CCA’s to participate as partners in developing a strategy, then negotiated a new agreement after an earlier open discussion, there would have been a better chance of consensus.

  Negotiations with a dramatic financial retribution in prospect, rarely leaves any of the parties satisfied or happy.

  The losers?

  The citizens of Vancouver (I fear)
  -30-

• 65 Mira // Feb 14, 2013 at 4:58 pm

  The Park Board represented by Blah and the general Manager Bromley have basically deleted themselves from any form of representation. They declared themselves out of the race, as they proved their time in office to be useless. When all the orders and “suggestions’ come from the City hall, from her majesty, the ballem bee queen there is nothing left to discuss really. Bullying, grandstanding, intimidation 101, democracy cubed, f#&*ing hacks, consultaion was the election… Vancouver people were conned big time. But as l0ng they replaced all the management inside city hall with Hollyhock / Solomon/ Robertson “produce”, it’s “Ka-ching” time!

• 66 Stuart Mackinnon // Feb 14, 2013 at 5:48 pm

  @waltyss 46: Kerrisdale and Killarney have not refused to come to the table–they were at it and walked away when they were told by PB senior staff that they had 3 weeks to do a deal or it would be done for them, This is not negotiation but intimidation. This fiasco could have been avoided if leveller heads had been at the fore. Threats and intimidation are not conducive to good labour or contract relations. Hopefully now everyone will stop, take a breath and cool down. And then talk in a reasonable manner. This new JOA can be done.

• 67 brilliant // Feb 14, 2013 at 6:38 pm

  I see waltsyss has completely forgotten FaBula’s civility lesson. Isn’t it strange that soneone who strenuously denies any connection to Vision takes any attack on them so personally…

• 68 Waltyss // Feb 14, 2013 at 8:51 pm

  Stuart@65 I was referring to the present situamtion. As i understand Fabula, at least. 5 CCAs are not at the table including Killarney and Kerrisdale. Is that incorrect?
  I am not condoning or forgiving the conduct of the PB or the gm or city manager. However at this point, they have said they will negotiate,presumably in good faith. Tamke them at their word and go to the table with the majority of CCA s wmho will be there. If the negotiations are a sham, then walk. My point however is that if the others go and reach a deal, the only choice for the outliers is sign or be chucked out. The PB will not sign a separate deal with the dissidents nor would anyone expect them to.
  Well, maybe the troll, brilliant not and gman would. But no-one of good will would.

• 69 Morven // Feb 14, 2013 at 9:35 pm

  Unless the PB and the CCA negotiate as equals, this will end in a disaster for the public interest.

  The PB and its spokespersons can (at least previously) barely conceal their disdain for the CCA’s which is not a good way to start negotiation.

  This is not a nuclear test ban treaty for heavens sake. It is two sets of representatives of the citizens trying to hammer out a deal for sports and recreation.

  Treat everyone as equals and I am confident, as Stuart opined above, that a deal will quickly emerge.

  Are there any statesmen/stateswomen in the PB elected representatives?
  -30-

• 70 Waltyss // Feb 14, 2013 at 10:19 pm

  @ Morven: it’s not just the PB who need statesmen, but all sides.
  As for equals, well, whether you or I like it or not, they are not equals. Ultimately, the decision is either the PB or the City who controls the purse strings.
  Moreover the PB has a responsibility for the city’s park and recreation system as a whole while each CCA has just the programs at its community centre.

• 71 jenables // Feb 15, 2013 at 12:20 am

  so just a general question…. where’s the fire? Why is this being put forth NOW, seeing as the”lack of equity” that I’ve heard NOBODY complaining about in day to day life is not an issue, really, to the CCAs. I just think it’s great that people can feel like they are contributing and therefore a part of their communities, and keep alive the very inexpensive programs whose full benefit cannot be calculated on a sheet. I have to wonder if dr.ballem sees family drop ins and senior lunches as “non essential services” in the same way she deemed people who worked in hospitals doing maintenance and laundry as expendable. “non essential”. the style of negotiation is similar. I’ve been thinking about this connection a lot lately…

• 72 Eric Harms // Feb 15, 2013 at 12:43 am

  @Waltyss #67,
  “…If the negotiations are a sham, then walk.”
  Well, what if it’s clear that negotiations are a sham before they begin? We (and virtually all associations) were on-side with the proposal delivered to Park Board on the 2nd of January. That joint proposal introduced all of the issues raised by Ballem/Bromley in the lead-up to the present impasse, and called for item-by-item negotiation, culminating in a new, comprehensive agreement.

  On the third day of the year, the Association Presidents met and discussed what would be our response should Park Board accept or reject our proposal. It was then that we realized that a third option was not only open to PB, but (given previous dealings with them) probable – No Answer.

  It was collectively decided that the absence of a response would (as of the 16th of January) be interpreted as a rejection of our offer.

  That date came and went, and then (on the 23rd of January) we were informed that ‘they have agreed to a facilitated negotiation. In particular, they are moving off the financial model that has been proposed.’

  Subsequent messages in the succeeding days proved that such was not the case. Not only was there no ‘movement’, but Mr. Bromley wanted to limit the discussions to the three most intractable issues, and to tackle them in a mere three weeks. This imposition of preconditions to negotiations, along with an unrealistic time limitation made entering into the process unreasonable for a number of ‘dissidents’. No one likes talking with a gun to their heads, and the discussions were not as all-inclusive as had been proposed by the Association Presidents. So, a number of associations declined to be involved.

  Given what has transpired since, can any reasonable person question our decision?

  The PowerPoint that Mr. Bromley rolled out on the fourth (oh, and the 5th) of this month showed that there had been no ‘movement’ at all on grabbing all the revenue, and assumed that lesser issues – yet to be negotiated – were already done and dusted. They are not; they are still on the table, awaiting approval of both sides. There’s no way that any (except Waltyss?) can presume that this behaviour constitutes ‘good faith’.

  I’m sure that the city would never agree, but I’d be willing to have a disinterested third party hear from both sides and impose a ruling that would be binding on both sides. Failing that, we have negotiation. All of us would like to see that.

  I know I’m repeating myself, but I will do so for the hard-of-thinking:
  Not one Association opposes genuine negotiation.

  Not one.

• 73 gman // Feb 15, 2013 at 8:38 am

  Poor Waltyss not only does he have to deal with those pesky elderly people now there are evil “dissidents” too.Guess the gulags are going to be full.

• 74 Bill // Feb 15, 2013 at 10:18 am

  @teririch #60

  A taxing or some other formula to reallocate funds is an obvious solution that would achieve the objectives laid out in the PB presentation but without totalling taking away the incentive for each CC. This leads me to suspect that this is more a power grab than even a cash grab. Kind of ironic when Vision keeps saying they want more community involvement but it is clear they do not want the communities to have any real power.

• 75 Morven // Feb 15, 2013 at 11:28 am

  I am struck in this thread that there is enough carefully thought comments to furnish opening statements in any mediation, a mediation brief and the various options for conflict resolution.

  Time for some balanced summaries from the PB.
  -30-

• 76 Silly Season // Feb 15, 2013 at 11:29 am

  What @Bill #74 said

• 77 waltyss // Feb 15, 2013 at 1:32 pm

  @Morven:
  If one stands back and does not assume bad faith by the PB (and sorry, Eric @#72, I don’t), then the PB is probably doing the best thing from their perspective, which is saving their comments for negotiations.
  I think that they have so far screwed up enough that continuing in the press or on blogs like this will only serve to inflame the outliers further without achieving anything of any utility.
  The use of a facilitator in these circumstances is absolutely essential and will at least help to keep things on an even keel for both sides. While the CCA’s have an important role to play and are no doubt emboldened by the public support they are receiving, they do have to remember that the PB’s responsibility is the entire system and making sure that we have an excellent equitable accessible overall system. We may all have different views of what that means, but ultimately that has to be the object of the exercise.
  I think that it is also true that if we were designing a new system from scratch, we would not develop the system we presently have. However, the reality is that the PB cannot go back and start from scratch.
  And Eric @72. I have no idea what “genuine negotiation” is. Usually it is a highly subjective expression that really is imposing a precondition to bargaining meaning that I will only negotiate if I like my opponents opening position and will go home if I don’t. Not too helpful in my view.

• 78 Eric Harms // Feb 15, 2013 at 5:32 pm

  The following MOTION was duly moved, seconded and passed unanimously at the regular Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association (MPCCA) Board of Directors meeting held on Tuesday, February 12th, 2013.
  Agenda item # 10. Revision of JOINT OPERATING AGREEMENT (JOA) Update

  Moved by: Jim Bennett and Seconded by: Alex Burton
  WHERE AS: the Park Board and many Community Centre Associations (CCA’s) have had informal discussions regarding the need to revise and update the existing Joint Operating Agreement (JOA) over the past year.
  WHERE AS: Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association (MPCCA), along with many other CCA’s are in agreement that the JOA needs to be revised and updated.
  WHERE AS: MPCCA agrees with the four principles that inform efforts to revise the JOA, specifically:
  a) equality among community centres,
  b) access to a network of community centres ,
  c) access for all citizens, and
  d) operational sustainability and accountability.
  WHERE AS: The Park Board erroneously declared at a public meeting held on February 6, 2013, that MPCCA and 12 other CCA’s were “Committed to Negotiation with PB to Complete”, suggesting that they were active and willing participants in negotiations for a new JOA.
  WHERE AS: The Park Board passed a motion, in the early morning hours of February 7, 2013, unilaterally imposing a framework for a new JOA without the agreement or support of a single CCA.
  WHERE AS: Malcolm Bromley, General Manager of the Board of Parks and Recreation, sent a letter, dated February 6, 2013, to all Park Board and community centre employees and contractors declaring that a new JOA will be in place and effective July 1, 2013, without the knowledge, agreement or support of a single CCA.
  BE IT RESOLVED THAT THE MPCCA:
  1. Calls upon the Park Board to properly and formally enter into negotiations with the MPCCA and other CCA’s willing to negotiate a fair and reasonable revised JOA that reflects the 12 point proposal, entitled “Renewing the Partnership: a Collaborative Approach,” submitted to the Park Board by 16 CCA’s on January 3, 2013.
  2. Calls upon the Park Board to commit to entering open meaningful negotiations on a good faith basis, where information is shared, adequate time is provided for the negotiations and for consultation and feedback from the CCA’s.
  3. Calls upon the Park Board to clarify that not a single CCA has agreed in principle or otherwise to the framework for a new JOA the Park Board passed at its meeting in the early hours of the morning on February 7, 2013.
  4. Calls upon other CCA’s to adopt this resolution, or a similar resolution, so that the Park Board and the Public are properly informed of the position of their CCA’s.
  Carried: Unanimously

  Magdalena Blasiak
  ­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­­_______________________________________________________
  Secretary, Mount Pleasant Community Centre Association (MPCCA).

  /MPCCA JOA resolution FINAL for distribution 130212

• 79 Silly Season // Feb 15, 2013 at 5:35 pm

  @waltyss #77

  I’d put it to you that, for starters, ‘genuine negotiation” should be ‘threat-free’. As per the ‘take it–or we’ll take it from you” ‘negotiating’ stance apparently aired by PB GM earlier in the process.

  That kind of approach may play well when dealing with paid employees but it certainly wouldn’t work with volunteers and their community centre associations. It could certainly lead one to make a perfectly valid assumption that PB (and/or others) are indeed negotiating in bad faith.

  So, er, um, trust… going forward?

  That might begin with a genuine public apology to CC’s for deplorable and unnecessary political attacks from all quarters of the ruling party during this fiasco OF THEIR OWN MISHANDLING of te situation. It’s been like carpet bombing out there in social media land. With message misinformation, galore.

  But since I’ve seen the meme ‘never apologize’ on at least one highly placed VV Twitter account, I think I can see more of the same in the future. Adjusted for taste and change of tactics, perhaps.

  Unless the Garr column is a substitute or first step in trying to calm the waters, expect more of same, at some point. Pity.

  They do seem to confuse ‘humility’ with ‘humiliation’ over there, at City Hall.

  Such a 20th century concept…

• 80 Eric Harms // Feb 15, 2013 at 5:44 pm

  It needs mentioning that the above post was copied verbatim. Although I think that they’ve got the dates wrong for the marathon meeting, the rest puts into perspective the view of one of the most non-’renegade’ of associations, and underscores what I’ve said before on the issue.

  The only difference between Mt. Pleasant and Hastings is that we will wait until all issues are on the table, and they’re willing to go to the table and ask that they be dealt with.

• 81 gasp // Feb 15, 2013 at 6:36 pm

  Apparently the Mayor has now decided that the way to divert attention from his own party’s incompetence and his own lack of judgement is to go after Clr. Carr. See:

  http://www.vancourier.com/news/Vancouver+mayor+wants+investigation+critical+councillor/7973204/story.html

  I think this action taken by Mayor Gregor to silence his critics clearly shows that the bullying and intimidation tactics being utilized by the Parks Board, Penny Ballem and Malcolm Bromley are fully supported and encouraged by the Vision mayor and councillors.

  That’s a fairly public display of “bad faith” before the “negotiations” even begin.

• 82 B // Feb 15, 2013 at 8:58 pm

  This typifies this entire issue for me:

  “WHERE AS: The Park Board passed a motion, in the early morning hours of February 7, 2013, unilaterally imposing a framework for a new JOA without the agreement or support of a single CCA.”

  The Park Board did no such thing. Frances posted earlier a very simple post that stated exactly what the Park Board voted to do – adopt staff recommendations to continue negotiations, to engage in public consultation, and to use the same four principles that are mentioned in the motion.

  It’s bizarre that supposedly informed members of a CCA Board don’t understand that, or don’t choose to make the distinction between the staff recommendations that were adopted and the staff presentation that supposedly lays out this framework the above motion refers to.

  If even the CCA Board members are misinformed, then of course regular users across the city will struggle to understand what is going on.

• 83 Eric Harms // Feb 15, 2013 at 11:47 pm

  @B #82,
  “…imposing a framework for a new JOA…”
  “The Park Board did no such thing…”

  The first line on the Park Board website, outlining highlights of the Special Meeting of Feb. 4th reads, “The Board approved the framework for a new partnership agreement with Community Centre Associations”

  Somebody’s getting lied to.

• 84 Silly Season // Feb 16, 2013 at 8:24 am

  @Eric Harms #83

  I salute you, sir! The word ‘approved’ certainly seems to put paid to the remark of @B #82

  If certain PB commissioners don’t ‘understand’ (knowingly or otherwise) what’s going on, what hope for everyone else?

  Thank you for bringing clarity to this matter.

• 85 Morven // Feb 16, 2013 at 9:28 am

  According to the Vancouver Courier (@gasp 81), the Mayor is hinting at a special investigation of Ms. Carr.

  Who would have thought that organizing bridge tournaments in a community centre would lead to a form of municipal constitutional crisis. Who would have thought that an elected representative asking a reasonable question of the City would lead to the same thing?

  Here we have the spectre of the dominant political party, VISION, more interested in derailing dissident views than, seemingly, addressing the public interest in the Parks Board matter.

  I thought that Ms. Carr asked a reasonable question in the public interest.

  Stilling reasonable questions by elected representatives seems a tad draconian when the City’s actions are themselves not unblemished. In light of the comment in @Harms 83, about the Parks Board information inconsistencies, the Mayor’s eagerness should perhaps be directed at the actions of the Parks Board Commissioners in this matter. Special investigator?

  Either way, controlling contrary views and providing incorrect information is not behaviour in the public interest, in my view.

  Kafkaesque is an apt description.

  My recollection is that Harry Rankin used to ask much more searching questions when he was an elected representative from 1966 to 1993 (with one short break). Even if he was a thorn in the flesh of the NPA, I cannot recall the NPA even thinking the questions were somehow not in the public interest.

  Perhaps modern Councils are more sensitive.
  -30-

• 86 brilliant // Feb 16, 2013 at 9:49 am

  @Morven 85-Geoffs Meggsaphone was bleating in the press this morning about requesting an investigation. Soon daring to criticize Frau Ballem will be a capital crime!

• 87 Morven // Feb 16, 2013 at 10:02 am

  @brilliant 86

  I am borrowing a phrase from the UK (Guardian) that is particularly apt:

  “culture of institutional self-defence that prevents honest acknowledgement of failure”.

  That describes some the events of the past week in regard to the Parks Board.
  -30-

• 88 Glissando Remmy // Feb 16, 2013 at 10:12 am

  Thought of The Day

  “The Five Year Plan – Chapter XIV: … where Tovarisch Meggs punches the air, pounds on the “Filthy Heartless Capitalist” Carr, and where the “Great Leader” Tovarisch Robertson lovingly approves the allegations. Then he takes another break to sip a bit of coco-milk.”

  brilliant #86

  Here:
  http://www.leaderpost.com/news/Vancouver+mayor+wants+investigation+critical+councillor/7973204/story.html

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 89 Morven // Feb 16, 2013 at 10:27 am

  PR Playbook strategy # ??

  Get the item as a legal item, then we can argue “it is before the courts/special prosecutor, cannot possibly comment”
  -30

• 90 Mira // Feb 16, 2013 at 10:53 am

  Thank you Glissy @88 for the link.
  YOU GOT TO BE KIDDING ME!
  The pack of hyenas are barking/ laughing at the brave buffalo. So what I understand from the despicable men meggs and mayor is that an ELECTED OFFICIAL cannot criticize and/ or defend the rights of the citizens of this city in the face of a handpicked with no competition for the job and totally unqualified political hack.
  Democracy cubed…Vision Vancouver style!
  Phew!

• 91 Everyman // Feb 16, 2013 at 11:03 am

  I’d suggest Vision tread carefully going down this road. Cllr. Carr has been very good at expressing neighbourhood concerns on several contentious issues. Attacking her will not put Vision in a good light.

• 92 Morven // Feb 16, 2013 at 11:17 am

  It seems a reign of error is descending on City Hall
  -30-

• 93 B // Feb 16, 2013 at 1:14 pm

  @Eric Harms

  I really struggle to see the negative sides of the Park Board adopting a framework that includes an approach of a) equality among community centres, b) access to a network of community centres, c) access for all citizens, and d) operational sustainability and accountability, as well as recommendations to continue negotiations (facilitated, at the request of the CCAs) and engage in public consultation.

  That, to me, seems like exactly what the CCAs want. You can call it “unilaterally imposing” if you like, but all it is is adopting some pretty motherhood terms about an approach to negotiations going forward.

• 94 Chris Keam // Feb 16, 2013 at 4:06 pm

  ““culture of institutional self-defence that prevents honest acknowledgement of failure”.

  That describes some the events of the past week in regard to the Parks Board.”

  That describes most of humanity’s organizations from something as old as the Catholic Church, to those as recent as Greenpeace.

• 95 brilliant // Feb 16, 2013 at 5:38 pm

  Mayor Adrienne Carr. Has a nice ring to it.

• 96 Morven // Feb 16, 2013 at 8:45 pm

  @ Chris Keam # 94

  Good answer. And that is why in a democracy we have elected representatives ask questions to minimise institutional self-defence.

  And the mantra is ” there is no such thing as a rude question”

  Asking the wrong questions is just as bad as not asking any questions at all.
  -30-

• 97 Eric Harms // Feb 16, 2013 at 11:03 pm

  @B #93

  I guess the old saw’s correct – you can’t tell a player without a program…

  I didn’t accuse the Park Board of ‘unilaterally imposing’ anything (although I’ll cop to the Jimmy Carter confession: I did so in my heart.).

  The authors of the phrase sit on the board of one of the most compliant associations that Park Board could wish for – Mt. Pleasant.

  For the record, I’m from Hastings.

  The point you obviously missed is what Allen Garr was trying to get across on Friday: You haven’t really known Screw Up until you’ve pissed off the very people who have been with you all along.

  Ready!

  Fire!

  Aim…

• 98 Dan Cooper // Feb 17, 2013 at 12:24 am

  I think I am on record in previous threads as disliking if not despising both Adriane Carr and the Green Party in Canada/BC/Vancouver generally (though my voting registration in the US has been Green for decades and remains so, and I cast my expatriate votes there for Green candidates whenever they are running). However, to see the Visionistas trying to investigate and destroy her for pointing out that their city manager was playing politics…and continue even after she apologized for the technical breach. I am even more thoroughly disgusted than I was even before!

  This is especially so because the Visionistas themselves have been unwilling to make their own apology for their past threats and ultimatums around the main issue, or even go as far as waltyss above and acknowledge that they have ever made even the slightest error in their approach to the Park Board/Community Centres issue. (Of course, immediately after waltyss says that it was a mistake, he then says the threat should be renewed.) Assuming it is true that the Park Board has now changed its position and is willing to negotiate honestly, which is not clear be it said considering the continued belligerency from them and their proxies and supporters, I do not see how that could happen until they have admitted and apologized for their initial behaviour. Without that clearing of the air, the intimidation and bullying remain the foundation of any “negotiations” that occur. Of course, it does not help if that intimidation and bullying are still continuing either. I saw a politician I otherwise respect saying in the newspaper that it does not help to get angry, and people need to just sit down and negotiate – apparently on the bases that the Park Board has set out. Actually, of course, anger is a perfectly valid and helpful response to misdeeds by and threats from those who hold power; and the correct response from the power-holders, if they truly want to clear the slate, is to apologize and then go completely back to square one on the basis of the interests and fundamental positions of both sides, rather than just their own. And frankly, as others have pointed out, there is no reason whatsoever that this needs to be worked out by July 1st, if good will and good decision making mean it needs to take longer.

• 99 Dan Cooper // Feb 17, 2013 at 12:36 am

  Eric Harms writes, “You haven’t really known Screw Up until you’ve pissed off the very people who have been with you all along.”

  Indeed, by all indications – meaning every quote I have heard from a board member in the press – supports the impression from my own admittedly limited contacts: apparently everyone at the community centres, including those who for whatever reason are willing to negotiate on the terms the Park Board is demanding, is unhappy with those terms and with the Board’s and City Council’s behaviour. While various Visionistas keep claiming that all the boards willing to negotiate are doing so cheerfully and in pre-existing full support of the Park Board’s positions, and that some boards are all but rapturous in their support, I have yet to hear or read a single statement from an actual member of those boards supporting such an idea, and in fact very much the opposite. As Garr wrote, that really tells you something since it is equally clear that many and in fact practically all were quite willing to negotiate before the bullying and intimidation started, and on any kind of a fair and open basis.

• 100 A Dave // Feb 17, 2013 at 2:45 pm

  B @ 93 “I really struggle to see the negative sides of the Park Boar…”

  It’s hard to take seriously anyone who has to “struggle to see the negative side” of the Parks and City Managers’ deplorable bullying tactics: ridiculous deadlines, marathon meetings with 3am votes, commissioners ranting at seniors, bureaucrats telling councilors what to do, threatening investigation, escalating media assault, etc.

  But then, coming to terms on a joint operating agreement and performing a hostile takeover are two very different negotiations, eh, B?

  This one is: Damn the torpedoes!

• 101 Terry M // Feb 17, 2013 at 3:44 pm

  Brilliant @95
  Adrienne Carr… Mayoral material she is not.
  For that we need an IKEA monkey dressed accordingly, oh wait…

• 102 Bill // Feb 17, 2013 at 4:47 pm

  I am not a Green Party supporter but kudos to Adriane Carr for taking up this issue. And best of luck to the CCA’s in their “negotiations” with the PB because at the very least their success will be a small victory against the continued efforts of the bureaucracy to control and regulate all aspects of our lives no matter how small the issue.

• 103 gman // Feb 17, 2013 at 5:06 pm

  This Vision attack on Carr really shows that they are really the fake “Green” party and only use the word green to sway the propagandized voters and push the real agenda forward.Or on the lighter side one could say they are beginning to eat their own.

• 104 Dan Cooper // Feb 17, 2013 at 10:47 pm

  Now HERE is an interesting thing:

  The other day, I put information about Trevor Loke’s speech at Killarney Community Centre on his Wikipedia page. Then the addition was deleted in its entirety by a user with the name Donburiland who made the following comment: “Edit removes irrelevant information which is of opinion, not fact.” If you go to the pages for user “Donburiland” you find that the only thing this user has ever done in the past is to create and edit pages about Trevor Loke and his company Weeve.

  Hmmm….I wonder who it could be that takes a sole interest in these two topics, and deleted what I wrote – every bit of it written in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines and supported by external sources – in its entirety rather than editing it if he or she felt it had somehow been slanted?

  For the record the following is what I wrote (and what I have now added back in) in its entirety and along with its references. Observe that the quotes are all taken verbatim from the Canada.com article:

  “At a January 29, 2013 public meeting at Killarney Community Centre, Loke spoke on the topic of Park Board and community centre financing, addressing an audience ‘made up largely of blue-collar workers, seniors, immigrants and young families’ with a ‘tirade [or] rant about the inequalities between poor associations and their rich counterparts in communities like Killarney,’ drawing a disapproving response from the audience.”

  References:

  http://www.canada.com/news/Community+centres+protest+Vancouver+park+board+plan/7895803/story.html |title=
  Community centres protest Vancouver park board plan; Public meeting at Killarney turns ugly after commissioner’s rant|publisher=Canada.com

  http://cityhallwatch.wordpress.com/2013/01/30/killarney-cca-emergency-meeting-january-29-2013-highlights/ |title= Killarney CCA Emergency Meeting January 29, 2013 highlights

  –

  Again, wonder who could be the person so interested in Trevor Loke and Weeve (and nothing else) that they would try to take factual information off his web page? I will certainly not speculate, but it could be an interesting thing for, say, a journalist.

  Come to think of it, maybe someone with good sense needs to have a little talk with someone else about bad political optics?

• 105 Cheezwiz // Feb 18, 2013 at 11:15 am

  @Everyman #91: “I’d suggest Vision tread carefully going down this road. Cllr. Carr has been very good at expressing neighbourhood concerns on several contentious issues. Attacking her will not put Vision in a good light.”

  EXACTLY. Although I’m not a Green Party fan, I was impressed by Cllr. Carr during the hearings I’ve attended. She was engaged (unlike the rest of council) and asked intelligent and balanced questions from speakers on both sides of the issue.

  This just looks like an attempt to muzzle dissent in a bullying manner.

• 106 Sandy Garossino // Feb 18, 2013 at 12:50 pm

  Ms. Carr is a sole councillor who raised a material governance issue. In the heat of conflict she over-stepped and has since apologized. It’s disconcerting to see Vision adopt such a pugilistic approach.

  The City Manager is so closely identified with the Parks Board policy that for her to rule on an opposition motion inevitably created or added to the perception of both conflict and politicization.

  Ms. Carr’s apology should be the end of this.

• 107 Ned // Feb 18, 2013 at 1:22 pm

  Dan Cooper #104
  LOL!
  Good job. I( would have dome the same thing and even more. Delete what that punk signing as “Donburiland” have put in. This Vision guys are nothing but a bunch of liars, pumping up their resumes and backgrounds the very moment they get the occasion to do it. Look what happens inside City Hall these days. look who these new hires are, where they come from and their affiliations.
  BTW FWIW your addition is correct and of relevance.
  Trevor Joke should delete himself from politics altogether. He’s a full of himself punk. Period.

• 108 B // Feb 18, 2013 at 4:37 pm

  @ A Dave:

  Perhaps if you read what I wrote and took it at face value rather than taking it wildly out of context, discussions on here wouldn’t be so polarized.

  What I said was I can’t see the negative side of the motion the Park Board approved at their meeting. It was to adopt bland motherhood principles of equity, etc, to continue negotiations and to engage in public consultation.

  If you want to interpret that as bullying tactics, fill yer boots. I read that and see that the PB will now continue negotiations and staff will organize public consultations, because that’s what it says. Seems simple.

• 109 spartikus // Feb 18, 2013 at 5:48 pm

  Ms. Carr’s apology should be the end of this.
  There seems to have been a climb-down on that.

  It’s the wise move, but damage has been done.

• 110 boohoo // Feb 18, 2013 at 7:07 pm

  He said, she said, whatever. Both sides look like childish idiots.

• 111 gman // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:05 am

  Boo that’s so disappointing from you,this isn’t about the usual Vision rolling over one neighborhood at a time for another tower ,this is a shot at every community in the city and a display of the vindictiveness of Vision.Boo this is our city not Visions city and these people who care enough to get involved in their community and sacrifice their time for the good of their community for no gain other than the betterment of the community are a very rare breed and if we loose these people we loose something that our kids will never see again,this is a very big deal.

• 112 gman // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:50 am

  Spartikus #109,
  I wonder how much this fiasco has cost taxpayers with all the consulting fees and the use of city staff,to their embarrassment I’m sure,before they realized the lawyers were telling them they were wrong? Why else would they backpedal on such an important issue as It appeared to be to the Mayor and Meggs.

• 113 A Dave // Feb 19, 2013 at 9:35 am

  B @ 108 “if you read what I wrote and took it at face value rather than taking it wildly out of context”

  You mean wildly out of context, like, say, characterizing a vote that occurred at 3:00 am, at a marathon meeting that featured Parks commissioner Trevor Loke ranting like a goon at the audience, as a decision that was made in good faith by a caring, loving mother?

• 114 boohoo // Feb 19, 2013 at 10:11 am

  gman,

  I didn’t say it was a big deal. I said the amount of misinformation from both sides makes this ‘discussion’ pointless. We have people in this thread and involved in the process basically saying ‘liar liar pants on fire’ and you have the parks board just towing the party line. It’s dumb.

  This whole thing needs to be put on hold for awhile so everyone, on both sides can chill the hell out.

  Again, I don’t know why this would impact your initiative to volunteer, but that’s a different discussion.

• 115 boohoo // Feb 19, 2013 at 10:25 am

  ‘wasn’t a big deal’.

• 116 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 12:00 pm

  @ADave. The meeting at which Trevor Loke made a fool of himself was not the meeting that went on until 3:00 am. Unfortunately, your post is an example of what boohoo is getting at.
  I also think that boohoo is correct when he says that its time for everyone, but particularly the PB and the CCA’s to shut up and get on with negotiating a new JOA.
  That doesn’t mean that the antiVisionistas won’t continue to slag; that is what they do; it is their raison d’etre, after all. For everyone else, time to move on. Who cares anymore who screwed up when. The situation is as it is and for the CCA’s that means they have more leverage in negotiations than they did a month ago. Now if they only manage not to overplay their hand, we may have an overall good result for the city.

• 117 Glissando Remmy // Feb 19, 2013 at 1:28 pm

  Waltyss #116

  What are you saying ma’ man?

  ” its time for everyone, but particularly the PB and the CCA’s to shut up and get on with negotiating a new JOA.”

  So, let me rephrase that, I come to your house, take over your living room, pocket the TV remote, put a padlock on the Spirits cabinet… then from lying down on ‘your couch’ I say “Shut up and get with the program. Oh, and you may use the kitchen from 9AM to 6 PM when I’m out, and I expect vacuuming to be done during that interval …”

  First. In your reverse psychology shtick, the message is basically directed to CCAs not the PB.
  Second. There was/ is no need for negotiations. Unless you are the one holding the TV remote.

  “That doesn’t mean that the antiVisionistas won’t continue to slag; that is what they do; it is their raison d’etre, after all.”

  Sure thing. After a delicate Vision gang banging like this, why don’t people accept it as a ‘valuable experience’, wash their thoughts with a bit of water, and move on. Right?

  ” For everyone else, time to move on. Who cares anymore who screwed up when.”

  Oh, that’s rich!
  Suuuree!
  Let me tell you. Vancouverits care. And they realized they screwed up twice. Once in 2008 and again in 2011!

  ” The situation is as it is and for the CCA’s that means they have more leverage in negotiations than they did a month ago. Now if they only manage not to overplay their hand, we may have an overall good result for the city.”

  I don’t believe that will ever happen, not for a… millisecond!
  Vancouver City, its Council/Park Board/ VSB are already … Damaged Goods!
  All at the hands of this insane Visionless bunch.

  Anything else you want me to clarify for you…
  leave me a note.

• 118 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:46 pm

  Ah, Glissy, my favourite NPA troll, you behaved true to form and won’t let it go. And of course, as per your particular modus operendi, the facts such as they are, aren’t good enough; you have to make them up.
  For example, the analogy is false. This is not about someone invading the CCA’s house. The PB owns the house (facts are such a bugger, trolly, aren’t they), not the CCA. And the owner of the house wants some of the money the CCA’s make from rening out the house for various functions, etc.
  The truth is that what the CCA tenant does provides value to the community but by the same token, the PB is entitled to more of the revenue for the other “houses” it owns through the city.
  You may think that the tenant keeping all the money. You being an NPA troll would believe geese shat gold if Vision took another position.
  However, the PB begs to differ and there is more than a little legitimacy to its position.
  Did they f*ck up the way they handled it? Yes, absolutely. That should make you happy.
  Did they have a point to begin with? Most people, excepting the Vision haters like you, would say yes. What they don’t want however is the CCA tenant tossed out and the City having to pay for their replacement.
  You’re welcome, Glissy my troll. Hope that got through the cloud.
  Oh and by the way, you forgot a pointless Soviet reference in your response. I so depend on them.
  Is that clear enough, moy dorogoy trollchik
  As for 2014, if the best your fellow NPA trolls can come up with is the bunch they ran the last time, well, prepare for the voters of Vancouver to make another “mistake”. Just sayin’.

• 119 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 2:52 pm

  Glissy the troll, Corrigendum:
  You may think that the tenant keeping all the money is fair. You being an NPA troll would believe geese shat gold if Vision took a contrary position.
  However, the PB begs to differ and there is more than a little legitimacy to its position. And, well, they were elected by the citizens of Vancouver. I know that according to your rizable math they have no mandate but they have more mandate that your NPAistas. And in our democracy that is all that matters, even if they do things differently in the gulag.

• 120 Glissando Remmy // Feb 19, 2013 at 4:06 pm

  Waltyss dearest,

  “Well, ain’t that nice?”

  Overlooking your cursive onomatopoeia you ask:
  “Did they f*ck up the way they handled it?”
  I answer:
  “And, boy, oh boy, how are the Vision veterans kicking themselves in the arse right now, for that little lack of concentration!”

  Hey, I hope your Vision buoys do know how to spell “Conflict-Of-Interest” though…

  http://vimeo.com/59812071

  Enjoy!

• 121 waltyss // Feb 19, 2013 at 4:58 pm

  Ah, glissy your trollship, let me borrow a page from your book and copy what I said on another thread in case your trollship didn’t get it.
  “Why am I not surprised that Glissy the troll would enlist the support of Mark Hasiuk the nasty, a diatribe long on innuendo and short on facts. Wasn’t Hasiuk a columnist at the Courier for a short time where he never used a fact if an innuendo would do. And gee, I guess the Courier decided that he was, well, a bit too far out there. But for the troll. What can I say except it figures.”
  For all I know Hasiuk and you are the same person: both nasty, both strangers to fact and lovers of innuendo; both unable to comprehend what makes a conflict of interest and both wrong more often that would be the case by chance.

• 122 jenables // Feb 20, 2013 at 12:25 am

  you two are quite adorable when you banter, didja know?

• 123 Michelle // Feb 20, 2013 at 10:10 am

  LOL,
  jenables #122
  I totally agree, however I like Glissy better.
  Sorry Waltyss but I do!
  Glissando’s comments got panache, a very funny sophisticated writing, on the other hand, yours…

• 124 waltyss // Feb 20, 2013 at 12:31 pm

  @Michelle, #123. I am so hurt, I really am.
  But just to show that, despite being hurt, I take no offense, I extend to you une deuxieme grosse baisse. Salut, ma belle.

• 125 B // Feb 20, 2013 at 4:44 pm

  @A Dave:

  First, Commissioner Loke didn’t rant at the audience at the Park Board meeting. Ask anyone that was there. Zero ranting. I assume you mean some other meeting.

  Second, a motherhood statement or a motherhood principle refers to bland, easily agreeable things. It’s not meant to refer to anyone as particularly caring or loving.

Leave a Comment