This follows
Union of BC Municipalities: Its Point Being? (Part 1)
28 June, 2018
directly below this post.
Both are a look at 2 particularly egregious rules - rather undemocratically foisted on municipalities by BC government. This left unaddressed directly by the UBCM, the organization ostensibly supporting municipal well-being.
Items 1 and 2 are explored in Part 1 and Part 2 respectively:
1.
Extending municipal terms of office from 3 to 4 years - without prior consultation of the directly concerned yet.
2.
Having mayors - always uncomfortably - double as Chair of Police Boards - with Vancouver the largest municipality of them.
The Gap Between 2 Chairs
As per Victoria's justice system Mayor Kozak functions as Chair of the Nelson Police Board (NPB) as well.
Not by choice!
The order to have the mayor perform extra-duty not part of mayoring - with an often adversarial position towards her own office - is counterproductive.
And definitely whacko!
And mayors cower, have been cowering for ages. Why and since when - its history - to be looked at later in this post.
With the Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM) nowhere in sight.
Wondering ...
Does Mayor Kozak (have to) compromise when she is one and the other at the same time?
Does she do her Chair prep at the cop-shop or the mayor's office - using mayor-time/resources? In either location.
Like - how much additional manpower from City Hall - at the taxpayers' expense - is necessary to have this thing sort-of done?
Is her legal staff as mayor the same as that of the NPB?
Does City Hall's non-disclosure rule apply to the mayor?
Does it apply to the NPB Chair?
Like - does whoever-she-is talk to herself?
As in at night over doing the dishes:
'Can we talk?'
'No, we can't - weeell we shouldn't.'
Does this drive her nuts?
Ridiculous?
Yes, it is!
All
coming down to separation of power - impartiality. Our judicial system
here ignoring this concept of fundamental importance in a spectacular
manner!
When previous Police Chief Holland attempts to get a zillion bucks through the NPB to keep imaginary hordes of barbarians from the gates, and his attempt is ultimately rejected by whom? at City Hall: where is the mayor positioned in all this? Steering this way-over-the-top NPB budget-proposal towards City Hall acceptance as NPB Chair to then promptly rejecting it as Mayor once delivered there?
Recusal from one or the other would/should have to apply to the whole very lengthy process. Leaving the NPB without its Chair. Or the City without its mayor.
When Holland ends-up complaining about the proposal's rejection to Victoria (surely blaming Kozak as mayor - yet in tandem with her as Chair?): how does Clayton Pecknold, Director of Police Services, objectively connect with Kozak as one and/or the other? Long-distance. At the same time. Or what!
Musical chairs - down the rabbit hole!
To make the/a mayor's, chief-constable's and police board's function more on-point - after ineffectual grumblings among BC police about this for years - both: the British Columbia Association of Chiefs of Police (BCACP) for its force and the UBCM for its municipalities need to make a joint decision towards resolving/dissolving this issue.
Separating work of the police(-board) from that of mayor - a gain for literally everybody:
Representing their members, they write 2 white papers with their particular perspective.
Keeping the news-media - thus public - informed throughout.
Then reps meet to ultimately combine these papers in one concise position. This position is fine-tuned by both memberships and - once accepted - brought before the BC Ministry of Justice, other relevant agencies and the news-media.
As for a PB Chair: engage an additional Director and choose one among the group to be Chair, possibly based on seniority or in rotation.
The bottom-line for this: the work of a mayor's Office and police department has been compromised - interfered with - for years by fusty colonial mindsets.
One seriously must wonder whether the current set-up could survive a court-challenge.
What History?!
2 letters to Michelle Mungall, Nelson-Creston MLA, on the Mayor/Chair topic - before 2 re-elections - elicit no response from anyone in her camp. Not surprised I let it go then. Not this time though, what with the municipal election for Council/Mayor coming-up- and that for a 4-year term. As in: who may want these jobs - seriously.
I connect with, attempt to connect with several individuals/groups in the thick of it all, asking a few very basic questions about the origin of this anomaly.
Not interested in exploring rights or wrongs with them but its history only, which hardly is participatory-democratic in its inception and application.
A
In what year was which mayor - for the first time - made to take on chairing his police-board?
B
What was the reasoning behind it?
C
Who instigated this?
D
Who/which agency instituted this?
When/if there are replies - they uniformly do not answer the questions:
1.
Mayor Kozak has no specific answers, neither has Frances Long, Admin Director.
2.
In several responses - not to the questions - I receive extensive material from the British Columbia Association of Police Boards (BCAPB) on policing and the Association's aims. Not interested in all that I ask again to just have my simple questions answered.
Nothing - except that Stacey Perri, BCAPB, volunteers:
"With regard to your question related to the mayor of a municipality being the Chair of the Police Board: the question of whether the mayor of a municipality should or should not Chair a Police Board has been in the public arena for many years; yet in British Columbia it appears there has not been a definitive resolution to the question."
This is interesting - while not related directly to my inquiry - but never mind "it appears there has not been a definitive resolution": she doesn't know?!
Basic historical information on the origins of Mayor + PB Chair seems elementary for them to have; Perri ducks and weaves, never acknowledging my questions-as-are.
3.
After several attempts at connecting with her, Shiloh Perkins, Exec Assistant - Nelson Police Dept/Board - following a confab with Perri - ?! - sends me the same immaterial material. Also ignoring my questions.
Unless both have problems with reading-comprehension: is there more to this? Whatever - it does not help inspire trust in police-boards in general and those who run them in particular.
I have yet to hear from:
4.
NPD Chief-Constable Paul Burkart
5.
The British Columbia Association of Police Chiefs (BCAPC)
6.
The same Clayton Pecknold who deals with Holland's attempt - together with PB Chair Kozak - to get his superbudget funded - despite Mayor Kozak.
7.
Wally Oppal - whose 1994 report The Independent Commission of Inquiry into Policing in British Columbia recommends scrapping a mayor chairing the municipal police-board. While the report leads to many reforms in policing - mayors chairing police-boards is not among them.
8.
JAG Policing & Security Branch
From 4. to 8. have had a reasonable amount of time to reply: what/who is preventing them from doing so?!
Scary in both scenarios - term-increase from 3 to 4 years and Mayor/PB Chair: the UBCM - ostensibly nurturing municipalities - is bowing to capricious authoritarian elements in Victoria.
Its upcoming gab-fest would be the appropriate environment for members as a unit to move both points forward decisively.
BUT!
Seeing that this is in September, also the time for incumbents to declare their next-term intentions: with 4-year burn-out attendance could be way down - see Part 1 - as many may not run again. Even if they do - there's no guarantee they'll be re-elected.
So - considering that municipalities - as in tax-payers - are paying for these freebies: why should they this year? At Whistler yet!
The timing for this convention is bizarre!
ITS POINT BEING?
End of original posting yesterday.
Right after putting this post online I finally receive a text-reply from Oppal
- over his phone and clearly on the run: getting my name totally wrong
for starters, clearly not remembering my message to him, not familiar
with this post, giving me info I didn't ask for - not answering my
questions.
Communication today! (Another story!)
Then - I find out that my idea all along and responsible for my insistence to get behind this: the Mayor/PB Chair construct may be colonial - is correct.
Literally!
By 1917 a mayor also is Commissioner/Chairman ex officio of the Board of Commissioners of the Police. Two other members are an alderman and an outsider.
Only British subjects can be on the police force.
The Mayor/Chairman arrangement is a simple - and for him probably rewarding - way of concentrating municipal power in one person.
As reported at the time: this is about "friends in high places".
While procedure and the Board name have been streamlined somewhat over generations - the Mayor/PB-Chair(man)-ex-officio construct as such has not.
But as for power ...
What I am thinking now: what with extensive information on the topic easily discovered by local historian Greg Nesteroff - everybody else I approach surely has access to the same. Knowing that colonialism - hush now, you hear: don't bite the hand that feeds you! - is alive and well in shame-on-you Victoria BC.
Image Credits:
Zundapp-Janus
A link to this post is sent to all individuals/organizations listed below:
Union of BC Municipalities (UBCM)
ubcm@ubcm.ca
Wally Oppal, QC
woppalqc@boughtonlaw.com
BC Association of Police Boards (BCAPB)
stacey.perri@gov.bc.ca
BC Association of Chiefs of Police
engagement@bcacp.ca
Clayton Pecknold, Dir. of Police Services
sgpcsb@gov.bc.ca
JAG Policing & Security Branch
sgpspb@gov.bc.ca
Deb Kozak, Mayor/PB Chair
dkozak@nelson.ca
Paul Burkart, Chief Constable - NPD
pburkart@nelsonpolice.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Shiloh Perkins, NPD/NPB - Exec Assistant
sperkins@nelsonpolice.ca
UBCM
Without well-functioning municipalities there would be no BC as is - without their Councils they would be dysfunctional.
And - of course - municipalities supply most of BC's votes, Victoria!
Therefore - the UBCM could be a powerful decision-driving organ for furthering the municipalities' developmental interests - incidentally benefiting BC as a whole.
Consistently nipping at Victoria's ankles, keeping her hopping!
Ouch!
After all - with over 170 members, including 8 First Nations - it is "an organization that has served and represented the interests of local governments in BC since 1905". Though without any appropriate growl, bark, bite. While its Mission Statement ostensibly prepared for that.
BUT!
Pretty much the only times electorates get any news from/about the UBCM are when its annual gab-fest is announced, is in progress, is over.
After - all we get is lists of interesting people local reps met, and the interesting workshops they attended there.
No major decisions.
And that seems to be that for another year.
One workshop last year - while of explosive significance - received little more seriously exploratory attention than others. Providing energetic entertainment value though.
This was about increasingly open expressions of hostility among/between Councillors and Mayors - in front of the great unwashed, too.
COUNCIL RAGE!!!
Hostilities have always been a given, but until recently reined-in with broody silences and shuttered looks: "keeping it civil".
And willfully unproductive.
More on that later.
Either the UBCM is unwilling to accept its role as enabler and the possible impact of a well-oiled P.R. machine on Victoria's often uninformed decision-making processes above and the members' reaction below, or it just finds little to connect with in Victoria.
We don't know - there seem to be no press-releases.
Two of Victoria's constructs of particular obtuseness we do know about well - standing in the way of people possibly signing-on for Council and feeling on-the-ground support once they've got the job - thus far have been left unchallenged openly by the UBCM. Although clearly detrimental to the growth of individual office-holders and their communities.
They are:
1.
Extending municipal terms of office from 3 to 4 years - without prior consultation of the directly concerned yet.
2.
Having mayors uncomfortably double as Chair of 11 Police Boards - with Vancouver the largest municipality among them.
Where were these topics in the UBCM's last annual? Has the Chair topic ever been critically addressed, seeing it's been an issue since Day One.
3 to 4 Years - No Probation
Towards the end of the second-to-last 3-year term a Nelson Councillor - expecting to be re-elected - said: it will be good to get some fresh blood and new energy on Council.
After less than 3 years.
Understandable - seeing the job is a draining experience, more involved than just showing-up at 2 Council Meetings per month.
Aside from staggering amounts of paper to be digested (fully, one wishes), staggering numbers of unproductive meetings to be attended: fellow-Councillors, the Mayor and admin Staff have to be handled within the context of constant impossible to sidestep deep-tissue city-hall-politicking.
Yet I also felt: if you need a fix now - after less than 3 years - how will you make it through the next 3? And will it be fair to expect the new ones to supply Council with what it's running short of now, this having to weaken the next Council from the start.
Most suitable as Councillors - for vision and general oomph - are younger, well-educated professionals. But those may also have a busy career and/or growing family.
Least desirable are the financially secure with too much free time, having themselves (re-)elected: not necessarily on the basis of what they can bring to the job but support among the neighbors.
When it comes to municipal elections here, voters show remarkable immaturity: consistently voting against their own interests.
Back to fresh blood. So there came 2 newbies of the right sort - one of them with the most votes of all candidates yet! - raring to contribute, change the world!
But they never got up to speed and promptly left after a single term. Taking the job to heart, making it too personal - a huge mistake in Smallishtown politics.
One must wonder at the UBCM's level of awareness of Councils on-the-ground.
If they had been/were aware: how could they just roll over when Victoria capriciously increased a term to 4 years!
This has no discernible positive value, but it does keep Councillors (voluntarily?!) captive for an additional year - with possibly more bad blood, actually! - thereby is bound to change the gene-pool of future possibles.
Victoria's brief announcement on this: aligning municipal elections with 4-year provincials makes no sense either.
They don't happen at the same time, and provincials are for well-paid career politicos, while municipals are for part-time dilettantes, paid nowhere near enough.
With mayors somewhere in between there.
We were never polled on a possible extension; we were never informed timely and comprehensibly that an extension had actually made it on the table.
Whose table, Victoria?
Councils are the spine of municipalities, are made-up of basic citizens, whose goodwill here is taken for granted by out-of-touch Victoria water-cooler types.
While the UBCM is playing dead.
The affront of adding a year to already overloaded 3-year termers: 3 years of time and energy - largely unappreciated - for the betterment of their communities.
You vill do as you're told!!!
Shame on you, Victoria, for having done this!
Shame on you, UBCM, for allowing this to happen!
About the workshop on serious confrontations in Council Chambers. Could it be that many have about had it, and looking at yet another year or more of exactly the same - people and stuff - was/is just becoming unbearable? Obviously - nobody would be honest about this here or anywhere: after all - they're stuck within the duration.
While one can empathize: should those now or even earlier at a breaking-point be re-elected, if they - I mean gimme a break! - choose to run again?
Local Councillor Dailly - in a meltdown during his 3rd year having attacked a citizen unprovoked and uninformed - accusing him of lying - ought to ask himself this question, for his own well-being and that of the community.
While expressing hostility openly, directly may not seem the most productive way of dealing with work-relationships: open expression does beat furtive repression - it's a step!
Next step - insisting that not only the 3-year term be reinstated, but also an elected municipal official be limited to 2 consecutive terms.
If they can extend them just like that - they can shorten them just like that!
In order for a Council to be effective its members need to be independently creative in contextual deliberation.
Under difficult circumstances.
Our current Council has shown little of that!
This is not to scare people off running in the very upcoming election, but just pissing and moaning about Xmas lights in a Star letter simply does not a useful Councillor make.
Contact the UBCM and your local MLA Michelle Mungall about the term-extension. This effects everybody: those who run for office and those who will be run by them once they get in and then what!
Mungall started her political career as a single-term (3-year) Nelson Councillor.
Michelle Mungall
michelle.mungall.mla@leg.bc.ca
Toll Free: 1.877.388.4498
Union of British Columbia Municipalities
ubcm@ubcm.ca
Part 2 will look at Deb Kozak occupying 2 chairs (sort-of and not by choice): the mayor's and that of the Nelson Police Board.
I mean - couldn't you just ....!
Image credits:
Dezeen
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Frances Long, Admin Director
flong@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
This continues previous post
Zuck on Opioids
13 April, 2018
Privacy
City Hall Disclosure Policy
"The City of Nelson does not share any of the individually identifiable information you may provide with the sites to which the City of Nelson links. We may, however, share aggregate data with such websites (such as how many people use our site)".
Nelson City Hall Website
Shape Shifters
Not "we may" - but "however" we do! All the time! And "such websites" means Facebook, since Facebook is doing the tracking of City Hall's user-clickers, and even if this actually were only for an accurate count (a pretext!): just for that they would need to be "individually identifiable" as well.
Which they are through all their unsecured Profile Data - involuntarily "shared" with Facebook via City Hall.
And automatically those of all their Friends.
But City Hall does not make this clear to its clickers - goes no further than the mealy-mouth Disclosure Policy above!
Identity Thieves
The double-dipping becomes a major issue during about 10 hours of disconcerting - often scary! - Washington Senate/House Hearings on the 87mill-Cambridge-Analytica disaster with Mark Zuckerberg.
Where he keeps talking about wanting the trust of users - and Senators/Representatives find it hard to trust him and his corporation over millions of blatantly manipulated subscribers.
Soul Merchants
Either City Hall is naively ignorant of Facebook's intentions with these data, or it knowingly feeds clickers to Zuckerberg; he in turn selling them to advertisers hawking anything under the sun - including political nudges.
An individual user's possibly very extensive Profile Data usually are spread over a multitude of diverse advertisers' data bases - often with dodgy commercial agendas.
Facebook - mainly focused on ever-increasing cash-flow-thus-power from/over advertisers - turns a blind eye where it should step-in!
Simple question and loud HELLO! City Hall: Why should "such websites" otherwise give a damn about "how many people use our site"?
Bottom-line: City Hall is enabling commercial exploitation of those unwitting Facebook users connecting with it.
Facebook has the same relationship with Nelson Star/Daily user-readers. Only it's not under the pretext of just counting clickers. There no reason at all is given for harvesting them.
Mind Snatchers
Facebook Canada's public policy wonk Kevin Chan - Policy Director for former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff; still with deep access to the Liberal government tsk-tsk - during his recent grilling by a parliamentary committee in Ottawa - said in his opening statement:
"I want to begin by sharing that, while we do not yet have all the facts surrounding the situation with Cambridge Analytica, what is alleged to have occurred is a huge breach of trust to our users.
For that we are very sorry."
The Record.com, 21 April, 2018
This relates to 620k Canadians - how many in Nelson? - part of the Cambridge Analytica personal-data-sweep for political purposes. And who knows what else by who knows whom. Zuckerberg admits the probability of other players.
Apologizing after the fact is meaningless: these Canadian users' Profile Data are irretrievably way out there somewhere.
Nelson subscribers also may not know: Facebook has been getting away with similar schemes since 2010. They just didn't get significant push-back until now.
Aplologists
So now it is share, share, share and trust, trust, trust and sorry, sorry, sorry with CEO Zuckerberg, COO Sheryl Sandberg, and Kevin Chan.
Chan's sorry actually carries some weight in Canada: here saying sorry works in any situation.
Seemingly deemed sufficient enough by him as well, as he refuses to answer reporters' questions after the committee hearing, dealing mainly with Facebook shamelessly cozying up to the Liberal government in regards to - while not registered as lobbyist.
"After the CBC reported on the controversy, Facebook sent a statement saying it will "soon" register its personnel as lobbyists.
NDP MP Charlie Angus is skeptical about Facebook's decision to register now.
"Why is it that Facebook only does the right thing when they get caught," he told the CBC."
CBC News, April 22, 2018
Why, indeed!
Users-or-not, consider becoming informed!
They need to be stopped!
Artist:
Federico Salmi
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
Frances Long, Director - Corp. Services
flong@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, CAO
kcormack@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
I was not impressed with Zuck's performance (Zuck to those in the fold) during his House Hearing in Washington, 11. 04. 2018.
United States
His performance was repetitious: while consistently referring to issues raised by House Members as "important", he frequently was uninformed of them. Or pretended to be. We're talking key-issues. To the point of several times dryly asked whether he, indeed, is Facebook's CEO.
Only having 4 min to get their concerns across/ask questions didn't give Members enough time to one-by-one decisively further their cause - although cumulatively they did - while making it easier for Zuckerberg: frequently trying to "filibuster" with flatish chatter - from which one Member sternly asked him to refrain.
Of course - one prominent topic in the Hearing was how Facebook does/did/didn't identify dodgy accounts to then shut them down in a definitive and timely manner or-not. The Russia thing, fake this-and-that, privacy.
Zuckerberg assured the Committee that he will have 20.000 experts looking at possible "bad actors" by the end of this year, with their work supplemented by tailor-made algorithms. One more good year for 'infiltrators'.
While home-grown problems - not so sexy - have been major, largely unattended - although known - issues since at least 2011.
Example: One Member producing an image for all to see, taken of a Facebook page on the same morning, with a list of outlets - itemized info, addresses! - selling Opioids illegally over the Internet.
Facilitated by target-specific advertising on Facebook.
Zuckerberg claimed no knowledge of this, and when asked why these lists could (still!) run on Facebook, after the not so recent any longer hoopla(s) which ultimately got everybody together here, he said a possible problem has to be "flagged". When the Member replied he was flagging it now, and could Zuckerberg commit himself to these lists being identified and deleted forthwith: he wouldn't.
Another Member then added that people may not flag a problem, assuming someone among millions surely to have done so already. Or that Zuck was already on it.
Which frequently has proven to not be the case!
The general tenor here and throughout the Hearing:
You want to be a leader - so lead already!
What with algorithms on everything Facebook: whipping-up a quickie for their Opioid crisis - just as drastic as ours - should be simple enough.
Of great immediate benefit to many!
But Zuckerberg - nothing!
While he loftily goes on about highest ideals of privacy, equality, community, sharing-sharing-sharing, and how "important" all that is to "us" - he seems to float above the fray.
Detached - also remarked on by Members.
Canada
Canadians need to take part of the blame for this seemingly easy access to large amounts of Opioids. While there is great concern here about the availability of and escalating addiction and deaths to/through them: where are those researching all this - if not on Facebook!?
Nelson City Hall
Subscribers clicking on City Hall's Facebook presence clearly are a feast for hovering overlords.
City Hall Disclosure Policy
"The
City of Nelson does not share any of the individually identifiable
information you may provide with the sites to which City of Nelson
links. We may, however, share aggregate data with such websites (such as
how many people use our site)."
"Such
websites" meaning Facebook, since Facebook is doing the tracking, and for an accurate count (a pretext!) individual clickers have to be "individually identifiable". Obviously - by their Profile Data! And those of their Friends!
Sold to advertisers of anything.
Nelson Star
Becoming more transparent in this Hearing's exploration -
What with the Black Press/Nelson Star's unholy alliance with Zuck: when his subscribers click on any item on the Star's website - any! - post a comment, participate in a poll/survey, or even just click on Like - they are immediately identified as particular 'types' and funneled into (a) particular box(es). This automatically including anything on their Profiles not nailed-down. And Friends.
Seemingly even after they have logged-off! Excused as "sometimes for security".
Anyway - this info-trove is constantly added to through click-recognition, molded/remolded into whole personae - even added to creatively, these then made available to Facebook's advertisers pushing just about anything. Unchecked.
For most effective syphoning: only Facebook users can comment on the Star's website.
Originally anyone could. Then Zuck took over commenting, with terms of use explained explicitly by him in a page-long set of rules. And then only Facebook users could comment. Eventually this page of rules disappeared - I certainly can't find it - and now one simply signs-in to Facebook under an item to be commented on. If not a user - herein lies the rub! - this is the place to join!
In effect - Zuck now is largely running the local public's opinion through the Star. And that of about 70 other Black Press publications.
Facebook feeding hand-picked Nelson subscribers/Star readers - commenters-or-not, with their unsecured site-data - to its own advertisers.
Deleting does not mean gone-for-good! A closed account is not closed to Zuck. Everything Facebook is repurposed!
Nelson Daily
While The Nelson Daily initially held out against the Facebook take-over of commenting: they are now into it with a vengeance. Catching-up! Their Facebook commenting directives do go on, much more explicitly and incomprehensibly than the Star's ever.
For a look just click on Facebook Comments plugin under any item.
Also:
YouTube
"Mark Zuckerberg's second grilling from US lawmakers - watch live"
I sat through 5 hours of this Hearing plus some of that in the Senate - admittedly in chunks, I could only take so much weaseling Zuck - more firmly convinced than ever: I'm better off without Facebook. And booklets.
But then again - who knows: there may be an algorithm for heretics as well. After all - although I don't own a pad or smartish phone - I am on the Internet.
"I don't have full knowledge of our systems."
Mark Zuckerberg - Senate Hearing, 10. 04. 2018
Image Credits:
mirror.co.uk
South China Morning Post
Washington Post
The Wrap
journalscene.com
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
Kevin Cormack, City Manager
kcormack@nelson.ca
Frances Long, Director - Corporate Services
flong@nelson.ca
The Georgia Straight's
Who are BC's most right-wing journalists and broadcasters
Charlie Smith, Dec 23, 2010
places Tom Fletcher 3rd on their list of 10.
For 13 years - since 2005 - he's been with Black Press BC in various reporting-roles and pretty much their raison d'etre.
A right-wing propaganda machine: now carried in about 70 Black Press publications. Generally free - the only game in town - community papers.
Captive audiences.
"Previous employment included 3 years as a refinery and pollution facilities operator for Petro-Canada in Taylor BC, experience that has assisted me in energy policy reporting."
Tom Fletcher, LinkedIn
Somewhere in there his wife is Public Affairs Officer for the BC Liberal Government.
Black Press also owns the Nelson Star.
Currently - on the Star's (LOCAL) OPINION (web)page #1 -
8 out of 20 pieces are by Tom Fletcher.
Routinely fed to the Star by Black Press central at the coast with most everything else, except the very little very local whatever - and advertising.
Is it just me, or ....?
Image Credits:
Black Press
Atsushi Kaneko
David Black, Owner
dblack@blackpress.ca
Tom Fletcher, Reporter
tfletcher@blackpress.ca
@tomfletcherbc
Eric Lawson, Local Publisher
eric.lawson@blackpress.ca
As Donna Macdonald - self-appointed City Hall Doyenne - makes guiding points for prospective Council candidates in her
COLUMN: Seven months and counting!
Nelson Star, Mar 21, 2018,
the subheading -
It's time for candidates to Google search -
bypasses warts-and-all self-assessment, necessary for presenting an up-front on all fronts persona within a City Hall context - before the election. Later building on that persona - if elected.
Ideally.
A strong vision of themselves as effective Councillors from the beginning.
I don't remember seeing possible candidates for the current and previous Council in meetings months prior.
Even once candidates ...
What their desire/need/whatever to 'serve' was actually based on is the proverbial anybody's guess. Certainly not connected to close observation of Council at work - collectively/individually.
Therefore one may question how much they actually knew first-hand about what they were aiming to get themselves into.
After being elected wasting much time getting the hang of the job. This - including expected to work within City Hall's 2nd Floor feudal system - had them dither for ages. Has.
Anyway - what Macdonald and several how-to-papers/videos - this time around - suggest is having "aspiring councillors" (Councillor Purcell incorrectly identifying would-be candidates when commenting on Macdonald's column) nudged along with self-evident running-for-local-office P.R. to learn how to be generic Councillors together - respectfully. Agreeing to be agreeable, not (wanting) to rock anyone's boat.
Motivation here not the driving force.
Ideally - would-be candidates and candidates (Councillors as a matter of course) simply fall back on - integrity. This single necessary point of reference to be held close in any situation during election and at City Hall.
Where decision-making largely plays-out in 2nd-Floor domination-games. A double-whammy consistently to be dealt with: for newbies usually a major shock to the naive concept of their contribution to saving the world. Locally.
Also - Smallishtown politics are personal, as is Smallishtown business, and what with both snuggling with each other: everybody has an agenda to protect and further.
Surviving at and after City Hall.
Integrity intacta?
None of this found on Google or touched-on by Macdonald.
A simple and effective way to help determine whether-or-not you are suited for a Councillor's work is this:
1.
Make a deal with yourself to go to every Council Meeting from now on - 2 per month - plus any other City-originated event.
Every meeting - the whole meeting. Regardless of your level of interest: showing some nonetheless!
See and be seen.
Possibly heard.
Watching a Council Meeting on your computer from the comfort of your couch - now possible - is hardly the same as actually being in the (usually overheated, poorly ventilated) Council Chamber. Observing Councillors inter/reacting-or-not. For 2 hours plus.
Part of your commitment here - integrity!? - would need to be getting out of the house - weather and all. Adding another hour going/coming.
Councillors have no choice - no matter how much they also would rather not go.
2.
If you - after a few meetings - start having excuses for not wanting to/being able to go or just admit you are bored, you must consider this:
Councillors need to attend every open Council Meeting plus the many closed to the public, as well as strings of committee-meetings - for 4 looong years. Not just sitting there like you - doing stuff, too! Piles of mind-numbing stuff!
3.
So - if attending just a couple of meetings bores you - be honest now! - don't waste the public's goodwill by having yourself elected! Getting the job can be relatively easy. Doing it could turn into one tedious, dragged-out bitch you can't get out of!
With significant reverberations for the Whole.
Those who ran last time, didn't make it and want to run again: shouldn't assume they know the routine. Clearly they don't! As in - where are they now? Why aren't they out there?
If you can realistically align your personal strengths (and weaknesses) with White Fortress doings (keenly observed/evaluated over months!), and you still want to run: show us what you've got!
Giving us time to get to know you well before the election - without not-again! enough-already! election-speechifying.
Votes for you will follow!
Image Credits:
Keith Haring
tumblr
pinterest
Deb Kozak, Mayor
dkozak@nelson.ca
City Council
nelsoncouncil@nelson.ca
