Mayor Gregor Robertson made an announcement this morning at council about Dave’s retirement (and the whole room stood up to applaud Dave in the middle of the meeting) and the following note also went out from city manager Penny Ballem.
(As an aside, I think there’s a sense that it’s safe for Dave to retire now that Brian Jackson is running the planning department. As Vision Vancouver was preparing the ground for terminating former city planner Brent Toderian, some of the key decisions were shifted over to Dave. Dave, who is a tirelessly nice person, will say I am just being mean to write that, but it’s unfortunately true.)
Anyway, here’s Penny’s note and, with it, may I also express my own regret at seeing Dave go. He takes enormous pleasure in crafting some piece of policy that he thinks will make the city better. It’s fun to see his delight when he talks about it.
Nearly a year ago, I announced that David McLellan had agreed to come
and work as the Deputy City Manager with responsibility for Housing
and Strategic Public Amenities. Over this last year, Dave has done a
remarkable job working across the organization and with many external
partners to transform our approach to housing affordability and to
find innovative ways to address some of the challenging issues that
our city and many others across Canada are facing in this area. I
think all of us have been amazed at what he has accomplished in such a
short time. Today, David presented the work of the Mayor’s Task Force
on Housing Affordability to Council, tabling for Council’s approval an
ambitious action plan for staff to advance the recommendations of the
Task Force.Last week Dave shared with me his intention to take his well-deserved
retirement effective November 30. Dave has worked 37 years in
municipal government, and his legacies for citizens in a number of
municipalities are numerous. David joined the City of Vancouver in
2006 and served as the GM of Community Services providing strategic
leadership over a number of years across a broad array of program
areas including planning and development services, inspections and
licenses, social planning, culture and others.I think we all feel the same way about losing David from the senior
leadership of the City. He has made many significant contributions,
and this last year of his remarkable work has definitely put us on a
new more innovative track in our affordable housing work. I know you
will all join me in congratulating David on his accomplishments and in
wishing him well in retirement. He will be missed by all and he
definitely leaves big shoes to fill (actually – HUGE!). We will be
arranging an appropriate celebration of his achievements and will have
additional information available shortly.Dave, thank you so much.
Penny Ballem
City Manager
44 responses so far ↓
1 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 2, 2012 at 8:47 pm
As Vision Vancouver was preparing the ground…
isn’t that the domain of the city manager?
…for terminating former city planner Brent Toderian, some of the key decisions were shifted over to Dave.
With that sort of political partisan meddling in the civil service, it’s a wonder people here cluck about the criticism weighed against Vision Vancouver by some of the commenters.
2 InsiderDoug // Oct 2, 2012 at 9:24 pm
I’ve commented here before. Why is my earlier comment all-of-a-sudden awaiting moderation?
3 Frances Bula // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:25 am
@InsiderDoug. Because the comments you posted about McLellan are pure subjective opinion. If you’d care to give us your real name and indicate your willingness to have people pass judgment on your character (without ever talking to you or doing anything to verify their impressions, of course), I will be then happy to include your remarks about McLellan.
4 InsiderDoug // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:37 pm
Thanks for explaining. It leaves me unsure what I’m allowed to contribute here though, since I see so many subjective opinions from anonymous people. Are you expecting that all people reveal their identities now, including those of us who work at City Hall and have a lot to lose?
5 InsiderDoug // Oct 3, 2012 at 10:44 pm
For example, how was my comment diff from “ThinkOutsideTheBox”?
“With that sort of political partisan meddling in the civil service, it’s a wonder people here cluck about the criticism weighed against Vision Vancouver by some of the commenters.”
Isn’t that subjective? If I comment on McLellen’s support for his staffers, or lack of it, whats the diff?
Thanks.
6 Frank Ducote // Oct 4, 2012 at 10:40 am
Frances – I totally support you on trying to rein in the anonymous negativity, often borderline character assasination, that too often crops up here. More than once I’ve asked people to reveal their own identity to level the playing field, or at the very least to ratchet the slanderous language down when not doing so.
7 Frances Bula // Oct 4, 2012 at 11:18 am
@InsiderDoug. Your comment here is different from TOAB because you make specific accusations about a specific person but provide nothing to support any of it. If you are going to write defamatory stuff about someone, don’t you think it’s fair for the audience to be given at least some evidence beyond your (anonymous) opinion? Wouldn’t you want the same if someone were commenting about you?
My objective is not to shut down critical comments. I let people here go on much more than some of my readers would like and I defend the rights of many to be petty and nasty, for the most part. But when it comes down to childish name-calling or when it’s a case of denigrating someone by name, especially someone who is not part of the power group in the limelight (you’ll notice I allow somewhat more leeway for the councillors and city manager), I think that it’s unfair to allow an anonymous writer to say, in essence “This person is bad and a creep” without a single example of alleged bad behaviour provided or any effort made to provide some balance.
8 Silly Season // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:17 pm
Frances,
I’m appreciating that approach more and more in light of recent articles in The Georgia Straight.
While it is a neccessity for the media (including bloggers) to be able to operate freely and in service to the public good, “allegations” are tricky things, as we are seeing. Claims of defamation from injured parties are not always always used to suppress. Sometimes, people get it really wrong. Add the word “malicious’” to the proceedings, and you have some real problems.
While we have Supreme Court rulings on this stuff, further tests look likely. Reputations are precious, on all sides of a story.
This is where reporters will differ from the casual commentor on a blog. Journalistic assumptions and allegations can and must be checked. Most media use checks and balances to testa story.
From out here in the ‘Anonymous’ peanut gallery, not so much. Results can be similiar—get it wrong, and you’ve ruined a rep. But likehood of ID’ing a poster by his/her nom de guerre pretty difficult. Thus people can pretty much operate with impunity.
So, @InsiderDoug If you have something you need to get off your chest—that affects individuals or the public good—it may be helpful to contact a reporter, directly. I am told that they have a duty to keep their sources secret.
And if you have a compelling story, they can check it out.
9 InsiderDoug // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:50 pm
Thanks for the clarification – I actually agree with u about where to draw that super-difficult line.
What i dont agree with is suggestion that i crossed it. Since you blocked my stuff, no one else can judge either, i guess. Mclellan is indeed part of that power group. He was Penny’s right-hand guy. As I said, he’s seen as a generally nice guy. But part of being a good leader of your “troops” is being solid, consistent and supporting your staff when they need it most. Especially with Dr. Ballem. He often didn’t do that, and boy-o-boy does word travel fast in the hallways when that happens. I can’t give examples without throwing other staffers under the bus, or me maybe! Does that make him “bad or a creep”??? I didn’t say that. But i did say many won’t miss him, and I stand by that.
You can chose to allow this to print or not, but those of us in City hall have very limited ways to speak out these days. Not bitch, just speak out – i kinda thought you were one of them.
Mr. Ducote, would you have felt you could speak out publicly, when you were still “InsiderFrank”?
10 Silly Season // Oct 4, 2012 at 3:55 pm
@InsiderDoug.
Well, there you go. Hard to compare the two pieces.
And jeez. Hope your name isn’t “Doug”…
11 Frank Ducote // Oct 4, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Doug – the blogosphere was unknown to me when I was at the Hall but, having said that, fortunately there wasn’t nearly the intense angst at that time as I fully understand from you and some friends that there is now. This despite three lockouts/strikes in a row during previous certain City Managers’ terms (all under NPA Councils, BTW).
All our host Fabula and people like me are saying is that commentors could and perhaps should show some decorum and civility about people and their reputations. I think we have lost some valuable and informed voices on this blog because of the increasingly nasty tone and tenor of postings by some.
Isn’t it in everybody’s interest to have lots of voices rather than just an angry few? I certainly hope so.
12 InsiderDoug // Oct 4, 2012 at 5:15 pm
Ok, i think we all agree. And Frances, I’ll keep the “nuances” in mind if i risk contributing here more.
SS – whats wrong with Doug? Lots of us out there…
Frank – “there wasn’t nearly the intense angst at that time as I fully understand from you and some friends that there is now”.
You said it – an understatement, unfortunately. Been at the Hall long time, never see anything like it.
13 Higgins // Oct 4, 2012 at 6:24 pm
“fortunately there wasn’t nearly the intense angst at that time as I fully understand from you and some friends that there is now. This despite three lockouts/strikes in a row during previous certain City Managers’ terms (all under NPA Councils, BTW). ”
EXACTLY Frank #11
And we all know who to thank for that, right?
The City Hall media gag order now extends outside as well, interesting… like everything else.
Nobody wants to hear the truth, what they want to hear is this:
“Vision Vancouver is the best municipal political party in Canada and Gregor Robertson is the best Mayor in the history of Vancouver BC (Before Christ)…”
Sounds printable?
14 Frances Bula // Oct 5, 2012 at 8:59 am
@InsiderDoug. I hope you do keep contributing. It’s valuable to have your specialized knowledge. It would be great if you could point the way to specific actions at city hall that we all should be taking a closer look at.
15 Frances Bula // Oct 5, 2012 at 9:02 am
@Silly Season. Thanks for these very useful comments. I think we are all learning, in the era of free comments on blogs, how to handle tricky stuff. I want this forum to be more open than a Letters to the Editor page in a mainstream newspaper, where only one in a hundred letters gets published. But it can’t be a place where anyone can smear a public figure randomly and with nothing substantive behind it.
16 Joe Just Joe // Oct 5, 2012 at 9:45 am
Not related to the above story but unsure where else to put it… Think certain posters will find the following article an interesting read.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/social-venturist-suing-vancity-credit-union-for-failure-to-invest-in-fund/article4590488/
17 Ned // Oct 5, 2012 at 10:48 am
jjj @16
“Social venturist suing Vancity credit union for failure to invest in fund”
wow!
So the guy goes away with $400000 in severance (sounds just like working for City of Van.) for ONE year of work, and now he’s suing Vancity for $10Mill.
Who needs another great train robbery when you can have your friendly venture capitalist join you?
If I knew that VANCITY is headhunting social engineering / venture “crapitalists” to oversee their finances I would have taken my business elsewhere.
I WILL DO IT NOW!
I always new that Tamara was no good news since she was anointed in there.
Suing each other, and fighting over other people’s money. Weren’t vultures supposed to pray on others? WOW!
Remember how hard Vision Vancouver (a Joel Solomon sponsorship project) operatives pushed so hard to get their Vancouver Courier mouth piece Allen Garr elected on the Vancity Board? What’s to make of that?
18 waltyss // Oct 5, 2012 at 12:06 pm
@Joe Just Joe: What does the G&M article have to do with this thread which was about the anonmymous slagging of public figures in the blogosphere. Ironically, by providing a link, you gave an opportunity for one of the more nasty resident boo birds to slag Berge, Solomon, Vrooman and Garr, all in one post.
Frances, while you want to allow a wider variety of views, unfortunately it also provides for the nasty namecalling that letters to the editor don’t provide. Just look at the Province and the difference in nastiness of tone between the letters and the blog posts. The technology has advanced but the quality of debate has receded.
19 Silly Season // Oct 5, 2012 at 3:30 pm
@Waltyss @JJJ has quite properly stated that he didn’t have a place to post this, but given the “public interest’ in his subject, (and I imagine quite possibly, to the VanCity membership!) a legal suit has commenced.
And considering the players involved, a most noteworthy lawsuit, indeed.
It’s not even a matter of whispers or allegations in the press. It’s people who have filed and will counter, so it’s pretty much gonna be out there for all to hear. I hope you’re not saying that this subject would be off limitis to the readers of this blog.
And sometimes stories about what goes on behind closed doors between “friends” is even more interesting and intriguing than what transpires between political opponents. I think you can agree that the players in this story as named (Vrooman, Berge, Levi, Tides) are worthy of some scrutiny?
‘But in November, 2011, the company’s attitude toward him changed and he was sent a letter that accused him of improper transactions. That included questions about a transfer of some of his shares in his first Underdog fund to the Tides Canada Foundation in return for a $250,000 tax receipt.
After several exchanges of information, Vancity dropped those issues and then terminated him without cause in January, 2012.
Vancity has not yet filed its statement of defence, but has provided a statement to The Globe and Mail. Mr. Berge was terminated because of “difficulties which arose in 2011,” it says’.
20 InsiderDoug // Oct 5, 2012 at 8:53 pm
Waltyss, i don’t think this thread was about anonymous comments – it was about Mclellan, and leadership. And staff feeling they don’t have someone they trust above them, which hasn’t been the case since so many retired/left/pushed out who I had known for years and most recently since Ballem pushed out Toderian, who staff trusted and believed in. No one left to stand up to anyone, say what should be said, speak for a staff who are crushed and confused. We are being positive, putting on brave face because we love this city and believe in it, but its too hard these days. Lots talking about “life being too short”, and its the hard workers saying that!! Sad.
21 InsiderDoug // Oct 5, 2012 at 8:54 pm
Frances, I’ll try my best to help. Nervous, though.
22 waltyss // Oct 5, 2012 at 10:00 pm
@Insider Doug: While the thread started with McLellan it became a discussion about anonymous slagging. I don’t think anyone has an issue with your descriptions of how at least some people at city hall are feeling (post 20). My issue was with the posting of the G&M article about Berge’s lawsuit which lead to Ned’s typical nasty reply.
@Silly Season. I am not suggesting for a moment that the article is not on a topic of interest. It is and the lawsuit will no doubt be of interest and worthy of its own thread. Rather that it did not belong on this thread.
One should also remember that all there are right now are allegations by Berge. If it continues to trial (unlikely), that will be much more interesting.
23 gasp // Oct 6, 2012 at 12:14 am
As someone who has no personal knowledge about Dave McLellan, I’ll only tell you what I observed as I watched him speak to Council on TV.
I saw a man who was completely willing to do Vision’s bidding and to mislead the public about the effect of this Vision “policy”.
When asked if people would be forced out of their homes – “oh, no, of course not”, he said with a kindly smile, that, in my view, betrayed his dishonesty. Of course people will be forced to sell their homes once their neighbours have been enticed into a deal by some Vision schmoozing realtor/developer.
When asked about the effect of the policy, he claimed it would still require the properties to go through rezoning hearings. But we all know, when that happens, all Council does is rubber stamp the deal they’ve already made in the back rooms because, after all, THEY’RE JUST FOLLOWING POLICY. So the rezoning hearings are a complete sham.
In my view, his responses to Council were misleading and intended to “cover” the public objections that City Council was hearing. Everything about that Council meeting was set up as a “show” for the public to see how open and fair (gag, gag) this City Council is (pretending to be).
Unfortunately, those in the media never seem to ask the hard questions, and instead accept at face value whatever these Vision or NPA people say without investigating the veracity of their statements.
Nevertheless, despite the media’s failure to critically look at Council’s conduct in this matter, I suspect there are a lot of property owners in this City who are angry about City Council’s cavalier attitude regarding property rights, as well as Council’s complete disregard for the laws that are supposed to govern them when it comes to establishing planning policy and conducting rezonings.
24 brilliant // Oct 6, 2012 at 9:55 am
@gasp 23-Unfortunately Vision has realized they can motivate enough doe-eyed renters into thinking tbey’re changing the world thru bike lanes & food carts when in reality they’re just developer stooges.
25 waltyss // Oct 6, 2012 at 11:54 am
@ gasp. I like a rant as much as the next guy. However, tell me if Im wrong. Is it not that City Council makes decisions and staff is to carry out those decisions?
What is it the media has failed to take a critical look at? Since the report has come out, the papers have been full about discussion regarding these policies? Much of it has been listing those “input” of those opposed?
What is the cavalier attitude to property rights?
What laws is Council disregarding when it establishes planning policy or conducting rezoning?
You are one of the “anonymous jackasses” who like to hurl out accusations of wrongdoing by others? Those are serious accusations. I am calling you on it. Put up or shut up!
brilliant not, why do you so hate renters. You are constantly slagging them.
26 Ned // Oct 6, 2012 at 2:07 pm
gasp #23,
Excellent argument.
brilliant@24
I walked on Robson street, and did take some picture of the “Robson square”.
They rerouted a busy trolley bus for what?
Two food trucks were parked on each end of the closed street between Hornby and Howe, and for what? To serve approx dozen people!
Few cyclists… were also using the… sidewalks, “safely” checking their iphones now…
Walt
27 gasp // Oct 6, 2012 at 2:58 pm
waltsys #25:
“anonymous jackasses” eh? What’s wrong – a little sensitive about the truth?
1. City Council is supposed to make their decisions openly, publicly, and with full public disclosure – not in the back rooms before public hearings or Council meetings are held. They are not supposed to being directing staff to create policies to recommend rezonings of specific properties or for the benefit of specific developers. Nor should they be deciding any issues that benefit those developers who donate to them.
2. The media has failed to critically look at numerous issues, including the honesty of those on Council.
To quote Peter Jennings, most in the media are now repeaters, not reporters. They accept Council’s false assertion (based only on the opinions of those in the real estate development industry) that there is an affordability crisis in Vancouver, that’s Vancouver’s high home prices are due to a shortage of land, etc. – yet they refuse to look at the effect of foreign ownership or monetary policy. Perhaps someone should do some real economic analysis – not just the Economics 101 mantra “it’s about supply and demand”. Maybe this writeup will help start the discussion:
http://theeconomicanalyst.com/content/vancouver-housing-full-correction-mode-implications-canadian-banks
When Sam Sullivan falsely asserted that people were opposed to EcoDensity because they didn’t understand it, the Vancouver Sun reported it, without even seeking input from others as to the accuracy of that statement. I suggest the exact opposite was true – people were opposed to EcoDensity because they understood too well that it would result in the destruction of neighbourhoods all over the City, by thoughtlessly adding density everywhere without considering the negative aspects of such density and how it adversely affects peoples’ lives and use of their properties. And that’s exactly what happened – towers in Norquay, Marpole, Broadway, Shannon Mews, Cambie Corridor, etc. So who is it that doesn’t understand – the public or the media?
3. The cavalier attitude towards property rights is clearly shown by their failure to realize that property owners have a right to the use and enjoyment of their property, and have the right to be fully informed about any zoning or other changes that may affect their property long before those changes are even contemplated by Council.
4. Council is completely ignoring the municipal law that governs their conduct including rezonings. By setting up “policies” to rezone specific properties in advance of rezoning applications actually being filed for those properties, Council is subverting the intent of the provisions in the Vancouver Charter and the Municipal Act to have FAIR public hearings when rezoning properties.
Council is not supposed to have made up their minds in advance, direct staff to come to a specific conclusion, and then use the rezoning hearing to “rubber stamp” a decision previously made.
In conclusion, we now have the most secretive, disingenuous and dishonest City Council Vancouver has had in the last 60 years. They act as though they are running a privately owned company rather than being public servants. They fail to have any depth of understanding into the issues – as the Mayor clearly showed in his radio interview with Bill Good this past week when he didn’t answer substantively any of the questions posed by the public. And they act as though they are superior to all the citizens they were elected to serve.
Vancouver and its citizens deserve better.
28 Michelle // Oct 6, 2012 at 4:46 pm
Thanks gasp @27 for a very compelling presentation of facts.
Everyone read this now
http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Vancouver+backpedals+thin+streets+proposal/7352927/story.html
I am sure Glissando Remmy would be laughing all the way to the City Hall if he reads this article, as this shows how corrupt the administration under Vision really have become . The task force on affordability turns out to be a colossal waste of time and public resources.
Sick of it.
29 waltyss // Oct 6, 2012 at 9:05 pm
Gee michelle, you saw facts in gasp’s diatribe. Do you know what a fact is? I saw opinion. A bit over the top but seemingly honestly held opinion, but no facts.
What is amusing Michelle ma belle, is the contrast between you and gasp even though you claim to be in total agreement.
While gasp tells us council is dishonest because they don’t listen, you say they are corrupt because they do listen. I guess they just can’t win. With you, that is. They seem to win elections.
I wish I had thought up the phrase “anonymous jackasses” because well, it is so à propos.
30 InsiderDoug // Oct 6, 2012 at 9:57 pm
Frances, I’ve honestly accepted why you didnt allow my original comments about Mclellan. Whats more bizarre to me, is why you allow the level of petty/nasty insults that go back and forth between people in here. For us at city hall, the comments I made are important and affecting hundreds of people’s working lives, morale, livelihoods. Here, a lot of it (not all, but a lot) is just partisan bickering as far as I can tell, with little value or importance. I’m right, so you’re wrong. You disagree with me, so you’re corrupt or stupid or bathwater-drinking or whatever. How many have any credible objective things to say?? Lemme guess – everyone thinks THEY’RE credible and valuable and the other guys aren’t. Honestly Frances, how do you stand it??
31 F.H.Leghorn // Oct 7, 2012 at 11:37 am
Well, for a start you can download my free app “wStuffer”. It’s an add-on to blog-reading programs.
If it finds a particular username, say, oh, I don’t know -” waltyss”, for example the app deletes that user’s remarks automatically. I’m guessing waltyss won’t be getting a copy since he can’t resist having the last word.
32 Terry M // Oct 7, 2012 at 2:14 pm
Fhleghorn -31
no need to do that. Not democratic. In Vancouver, remember, democracy is cubed, and this is the delivery, you f$@;:”g NPA hacks, yeah!?
removing his comment would be an insult to Vision operatives everywhere.
What’s surprising is that W is not getting his own ironic comment. Calling people like that… When in fact… he is… One of them!
33 Silly Season // Oct 7, 2012 at 4:01 pm
In case you missed i,t and in the spirit of the Thanksgiving holiday (and in keeping with the political nature of this blog), here is a very amusing piece, by the CBC’c Stephen Quinn that appeared in yesterday’s Globe
In spite of the politicians– and politics–a Happy Thanksgiving to all of Fabula’s loyal readers, regardless of political stripe!
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/gregor-robertsons-thanksgiving-grace/article4593042/
34 Frances Bula // Oct 8, 2012 at 11:58 am
@InsiderDoug. I agree that there is a lot of nasty, petty stuff exchanged between blog posters here. I do step in and start shutting comments down when it seems to be going on too long. One difference between those commenters and anyone who writes critical stuff about people identified by name 1. These are exchanges between people whose identities we don’t know, so neither of them is having the reputations attached to their real identities damaged 2. They are usually calling each other stupid and witless, which is within the bounds of fair comment and which we can all recognize as just emotional name-calling, as opposed to a real and potentially defamatory comment about the way that person is carrying out the duties of his or her job.
But you don’t have to take my word for any of this. Why don’t you talk to a libel lawyer (see if there’s a brief consultation available through a legal-education institution or something similar) and ask whether it’s okay to name someone and then make specific accusations about the way they are performing their jobs? I realize in the age of the blog that average citizens, through no fault of their own, now think it’s perfectly okay to say anything about anyone without having to come up with any evidence.
I recognize that you feel as though you do have evidence, but you can’t come forward with it. I respect that you feel you need to speak out about various people at city hall whose actions are having a real and negative impact on others. But I’d ask you to please consider how you would feel if the tables were turned. If you were in some management role at city hall and someone decided you were a total asshole, would you feel okay about me publishing comments about you, with your real name attached, from an anonymous source who doesn’t specify exactly why you are such a terrible manager, (and “throwing people under the bus” doesn’t qualify as evidence) but says that you are, at length?
35 ThinkOutsideABox // Oct 8, 2012 at 12:52 pm
Just to add InsiderDoug, the difference between my comment and yours before removal, is that I’m merely reacting to what Frances wrote:
As Vision Vancouver was preparing the ground for terminating former city planner Brent Toderian…
She is very clear in attributing who the influence behind the dismissal came from. So apart from some reading comprehension misunderstanding, I’m confused as to why you roped my comment in for comparison.
36 spartikus // Oct 8, 2012 at 8:01 pm
Observations made under a pseudonym are fine – but you cannot claim insider knowledge or professional expertise.
As for the Fabula community in general, I have to admit I haven’t been paying as much attention as I once did, but I get the feeling there is a general consensus that things have gotten a bit off the rails the last 6 months or so. I have a great deal of respect for Frances’s insights and continue to read the blog posts, but I now only glance at the comment section – which was once an equally worthy expenditure of time.
Ultimately people – of all political stripes – need to step up and self-police so that white noise gets cut down.
There’s a simple rule of thumb: It’s fine to attack the integrity of arguments. It’s not okay to attack the integrity of individuals.
I’m not without sin in this, but tack close to this principle you’ll usually end up with something worthwhile.
Staying on topic is also a good rule that we all could help enforce.
37 Frances Bula // Oct 9, 2012 at 6:53 am
@spartikus. How quickly we forget. The last six months or so, the comments have gotten a bit off the rails? Are you kidding? The squabbles here are child’s play compared to some of the incredible mixed-martial arts episodes that used to go on. The blog routinely had people posting comments about me that were libellous, along with all kinds of over-the-top abusive attacks on each other and various public figures. And who can forget some of the great battles of yore? I won’t name names, for fear of rousing sleeping dragons, but really … anything now is tame in comparison.
What I do think is happening is that the blog world is evolving to something more civilized. Still more open than any letters-to-the-ed page, but not quite the lawless intergalatic universe it was. Or at least on the blogs that hope to have some kind of public discussion that is more than just trolls (aka the comments pages of certain media outlets).
38 Joe citizen // Oct 9, 2012 at 1:21 pm
Frances, call me an idiot, but did I miss something? I thought Sadhu Johnson was Deputy City Manager? Help!
39 Frances Bula // Oct 9, 2012 at 1:47 pm
@There are currently two deputies, Sadhu and Dave.
40 Joe citizen // Oct 9, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Okay, thanks.
41 West End Gal // Oct 10, 2012 at 11:30 am
Joe citizen… 38
Talk about doubling services, double pay, double benefits… anything goes for this Vision Vancouver controlled administration. And what do they do for that money? Manage more municipal debt. What waste, What cronyism!
42 Frank Ducote // Oct 10, 2012 at 1:55 pm
WEG – There have been two deputy city managers for many years, regardless of the party in power.
43 waltyss // Oct 10, 2012 at 6:35 pm
@Frank Ducote, WEG is not interested in facts. She just likes to rant and she doesn’t seem to mind when the spittle from her rants blows back in her face.
44 Julia // Oct 11, 2012 at 9:33 am
I think we are seeing a general frustration around spending and accountability which leaves everyone assuming that the expensive, single minded approach has been taken. Not a great reputation to have – even if you have earned it and even we have always had 2 city deputy managers.
Leave a Comment