Wednesday 27 September 2017

You really want to be Councillor? Why?



According to Council's 3-year shelf-life of the past: there would be an election any day now. The third year always and inevitably sluggish - deep breath and enough already! On both sides.
With - from the current Council onward - a term stretching from 3 years to 4, the big question is: will their energy - demonstrably low at this point - stretch that far?

Mayor Kozak and Council - very conscious of the 3-year wall - recently held a meeting to take stock of what they accomplished over the last 3-years. So they're done? What's with the coming 4th?

For everybody's sake: Councillors now should be allowed 1 term only! While 2 consecutive 3-year terms were still doable - 2 consecutive 4-year terms decidedly are not.
Adjustment upward by 1 year just to bring municipal terms in convenient line with provincials shows extraordinary lack of interest in municipals by the provincial government.
What with provincial politicos professionally fulltime and very well-compensated - Smallishtown City Councillors are remunerated only so-so as parttimers: pensioners or those - by vital necessity - with primary focus on a fulltime job elsewhere.
But then - municipalities could/should have spoken up loudly in/through their Union of BC Municipalities and MLAs - yet did they? Were they consulted? Not that we and future Councillors know.

Despite public knowledge here that the current term was to be 4 years, a surprisingly large number of would-be Councillors presented their elect-me shtick. Go figure!
That may happen again next year, and it would be good for us Nelsonites if those even just vaguely considering running - to keep later surprises to a minimum and conserve energy - soon started to give it in-depth attention. Keeping in mind that Council - ostensibly! - has the power to shape Nelson. A hefty weight - best not carried lightly!

So - once campaigning: showing-up at a Council Meeting or two just before the election to see in person how it's done when/where it's done is irresponsible. Leading to unrealistic expectations. An unhealthy Council from the get-go.




Random Reasons For 
Is it that you have been attending Council Meetings as spectator, sitting through Agendas presented/passed - possibly without adequate cause-and-effect consideration - saying to yourself: WTF - I could do this better?

Is it that you don't have a life and feel being a Councillor would give you one?

Is it because you're frustrated with the way the current Council has been rubber-stamping big-ticket items, and as Councillor you would feel ready to - if need be - push for their full engagement, framed by diligence, transparency, accountability: with you totally ready to come from that place?

Is it that you are a control-freak?

Is it that you - with your biggish ego - feel underutilized in this here Smallishtown, thinking that as Councillor you could calm the restlessness within: channel it into positive changes and - what could be better! - get stroked for it publicly?

Is it that you have a hush-hush agenda not directly related to the responsibilities of a Councillor?

Is it that sitting on one board or another isn't cutting it any longer - you're frustrated with treading water: ready for the bigger pond?

Is it that you feel: good enough just isn't good enough?

Is it that you have an urge to prevent Nelson from doing itself in?

Or what?




Reality Of
A Councillor's job does not begin/end in Council Meetings - its nature is time/energy-consuming: if done circumspectly, often leaving little time for fun and games at home and the real job done conscientiously, if there is one. Something's gotta give - visible to the great unwashed is Council's performance in the public meetings only. They're rarely seen in the streets.

To arrive at a well-substantiated personal opinion on an Agenda item - a few days before it is tabled in Council - with material of frequently shallow and/or subjective depth provided by the CAO/Staff - needs a clear, logical head, extensive research - and time.

A focused two-prong approach - not only as Councillors but also as members of the community - is crucial.

As in: all Councillors consistently conscious of this basic position would lead to vigorous discussions, ending in solid decisions. Would.
Sadly - it's been Councillors up there and the community down here all along.

They frequently are superficially prepared, seemingly leaving a decision to bubble to the surface during meetings, or having been nudged in a particular direction by the CAO. In the backroom, just prior to the official vote on an item in public. Prepped.
An habitual lack of personal connectedness has led Councillors to approve items generally - specifics within big-ticket items usually left unaddressed. Meaning: once they approve the thing in principal (only), crucials undoubtedly arising later are no longer their business - their concern.

As in more and more Cottonwood Market funding - but still no acceptable toilets; Hall St. Phases 1/2 in bits and clumsy pieces; the Panhandling Bylaw without panhandlers; Wood-Chip Steam out of steam; the Solar Garden an invasive species.

Then there are committee-meetings at all hours, often little different from private-sector board-meetings: talk, talk, talk and the decision when to talk some more.

 


So Why?
One wonders what prompts Nelsonites to want to be Councillors: their by-rote election-rhetoric never a believable explanation.

So - the rare oddity knowing clearly what the job entails - endless stacks of stuff, endless meetings, endless in-house politicking, endless sacrifices in their personal lives and endless boredom - but still wanting to take it on, is to be enthusiastically embraced!




Image Credits:
glutendude
memolition


City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca

Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca

Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca   

Sunday 3 September 2017

Very Bad Cop - Very Free Donuts!



This post connects with
City paid part of convicted cop's legal fees
                                                  Nelson Star, Sep 2, 2017
More precisely: it was the tax-payer - not the City!





Criminal Cop
Local cop Drew Turner - while off-duty - beats a severely inebriated, about half-his-size, handcuffed woman unconscious, in front of two on-duty cops who do not participate in this. Finishing his assault with "That will shut her up!" he drives off, to repeat the same alpha-grunt later to a dispatcher. And then lies a lot.




The report/eye-witness account of the 2 on-duty cops raises questions, and Turner is put on well-paid desk-duty for the eventually lengthy duration of investigations and his subsequent trial.
Nobody talks in public about possible drugs - roidrage? - or even just a breathalizer-test. Considering his way-out-of-proportion, explosive meltdown, it would seem appropriate to also have his mental health evaluated - before letting him loose on even just desk-duty. After all, there is at least the well-being of his 2 fellow cops - testifying against him - to be considered.
But he does not start any "counseling" until about 7 months after the attack, and it has not been made known who initiated it, why only then and what the results are.




Accumulating costs of legal proceedings against Turner are volunteered by the City - actually tax-payered - but not made public either at the time, with the Nelson Police Board (NPB) stating it MAY seek reimbursement later. While it actually has paid absolutely nothing towards the consequences of its employee's meltdown.


 

Judge Richard Hewson - on the job less than 2 years - finds Turner guilty, and after righteously proclaiming "When a police officer breaches the public trust and engages in illegal activities, even if off-duty, it undermines the public confidence in the police and the rule of law", promptly sentences him to 1 month of (still well-paid!) house-(ar)rest and 2 years probation, citing most bizarrely biased mitigating circumstances for his (poor) judgement.

Eventually Turner resigns from the Nelson Police Department (NPD) - staying on its payroll until he actually does leave. The extent of his severance-pay package also is not known to the public.




But now this public is told that part of the legal costs of $38.115 - as per confidential(!) agreement between the NPB and convicted assailant Drew Turner - will be carried by Nelson(ites). But not how much and orchestrated through whom at City Hall.

"The board considered the amount Mr. Turner offered, they got legal advice, and said they were satisfied and the matter was closed."
                                                              Deb Kozak, NPB Chair
                                                              Above-mentioned Star article

So - convicted criminal Turner OFFERED(!) to pay only so much for his own legal defense; the Board - after running the figure by legals (who?) - thought his offer was just fine, and whatever the hush-hush rest may be is stuck to Nelson taxpayers. These including Turner's victim Tawny Campbell!
Matter closed! 

Seriously?     

While not so hush-hush, in
Mason v. Turner
2014CSC211
(shortly before Turner's flesh-fest)
Court finds for the plaintiff and - wouldn't you know it! - City Hall pays Turner's fine of $500! Surely plus costs.

So - to be factored-in-but-not by the NPB/NPD: this cop's most vicious attack by/on a single person in Nelson's not so recent history is preceded by another run-in with the law. A quick one-two!

Considering the NPD's proactive efforts to gain the public's trust now - after the reign of the previous Chief then - have just begun to bear comforting fruit: this decision by the NPB - why it was reached and how (not) communicated - is a giant step back into days of habitual dissatisfaction with police - the NPD.

Seeing that Turner was employed by the NPB, and the NPB is in charge of the NPD, it is totally unacceptable that the public should get stuck with "part" of these legal fees for off-leash Turner. While - except for that - ignored, with no concern shown for those to be served, protected, etc.

The NPB compensating Tawny Who? Campbell and having Turner's legal costs come out of the NPD budget are non-issues.




Nelson Police Board
Following is some basic - while frequently irrational - info on the NPB - Nelsonites may know little of. More can be found on the City's website-mainpage, under Nelson Police Department.

Responsibilities of the Nelson Police Board
The Nelson Police Board is responsible for appointing the Chief Constable and evaluating his or her performance. The Board provides direction to the Nelson Police Department through the Chief Constable. The Chief is responsible for the day-to-day operation of the department.

The Nelson Police Board is accountable to the community of Nelson, the BC Ministry of Public Safety and the Solicitor General, and the members and employees of the Nelson Police Department through senior management.

Municipal Police Boards are created independently from municipal councils and from provincial government. This removes boards from partisan council (sic) and politics, as well as recognizes that both the municipality and province have legitimate interests in municipal policing.

Legitimate interests in municipal policing? 
Where did this twaddle originate?




Contradictory"Responsibilities"
The Nelson Police Board is comprised of (sic) the mayor, who is designated chair (?), one person appointed by municipal council (?) and up to five persons appointed by the Lieutenant Governor-in-Council (?).

How City Council chooses its local "director" and the Lieutenant Governor in Victoria her Nelsonites for the province is not public knowledge. Clearly - province-appointed local "directors" are chosen based on local "recommendations" only. 
Secret Smallishtown handshakes?

None of our "directors" have a background in public safety, policing, criminal justice. 

Little of all of the above makes sense: Most NPB "directors" are appointed by the "province", and the NPB is overseen by the "provincial" Ministry of Public Security and the "provincial" Solicitor General. So how "independent" are they, and - by the way! - who creates these Boards "independently"?
Also - the NPB Chair is a "municipal" employee as Mayor: possibly "partisan" and undoubtedly "political".

Then - how much circumspect oversight there is from Public Safety and the Solicitor General is debatable, considering that every municipality's Board in BC may be set-up following the same muddled model. And recently reinvented Victoria is busy. So our Board certainly can - and does - act like a singular entity in there somewhere.
We'll never know!

Like - being "accountable to the community" does not mean the NPB is - has ever been - accountable to the community: this Turner disaster being the latest example.












NPB Decision-Makers









 Deb Kozak, Chair - since elected Mayor 



  






Barb Henry, Director - 6 years










Bill Reid, Director - 5 years










Hilda Taylor, Director - 5 years










Elizabeth Edwards, Director - 2 years










Amed Naqvi, Director - 1 year





Having the mayor of a municipality automatically be its Police Board's Chair is a most growth-inhibiting - seemingly colonial - institution in municipal BC politics. Leaving her/him no room to decisively move forward as either in relation to the other.
A number of years ago a meeting of BC police chiefs overwhelmingly voted against the practice - but so far there has been no political will for change.



Next NPB meeting:
Nelson Police Department/Boardroom
19 Sep, 2017 - 15:00
Open to the public

Tel. 250.354.3919
administration@nelsonpolice.ca






 





You don't like what's going on? Go tell them: you'll get 10 minutes!




Image Credit:
City of Nelson


Deb Kozak, Mayor/NPB Chair
dkozak@nelson.ca

Paul Burkart, NPD - Chief Constable
administration@nelsonpolice.ca

Nelson Police Board
administration@nelsonpolice.ca

City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca