Recent comments

A tiny detail on the double majority, it is not 60%, it is "more than 50%". The real catch, however, is that this percentage is calculated on "the total number of registered voters in British Columbia", and the double majority aspect requires that "more than 50% of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts in British Columbia" vote in favour of an initiative.

If that standard - more than 50% of registered voters for each of at least 2/3 of the electoral districts - were to be applied to form a majority government, we would never again see a majority government in this province.

That statute is a farce, a cynical and malicious one at that. 

Thanks, David. I'd like to add that our current mayor and councillors might well pass the vetting process you mention. Most people who run at the municipal level are just trying to be good citizens and take a lot of flack (much of it from the Telegraph here in Rossland!).

But I agree that we'd all benefit from the widest array of candidates possible.--ed.

I much agree Adrian.

There are many problems with the system, and I think the primary one is the way our "leaders" are chosen.

As in every riding, there are a few deidicated souls, some sincere, some for ulterior motives, who join a particular local party, who then chose a leader among themselves.

Then we are left to choose from one of those selected by each party.

Doesn't makes sense. Like I always say, there are elected officials, and then there are community leaders.

It's normal in any community for certain people to gain the respect of the others, and the community would normally accept assigning them certain responsibiltieis on behalf of the others.

But in our current "democracy" we have no system for moving those people respected by the community into positions of authority.

Instead, we have a few people who feel entitled to self-appoint themselves to run for office. In very rare cases, that's a good thing. But most of the time, those candicates have only been vetted by the handful in their own party, not the community as a whole.

I think it's time we reinvented the process by which we choose who will represent us.

I think to start with, for the next municipal election in Rossland, we should gather committees that would make proposals of who they consider most qualitfied for City Council, and ask them to run.

I firmly believe that most often, the best people to represent others tend to be too humble to step forward. And that's a good quality.

It should be the community's job to make our choice known to a certain candidate, and encourage them to run on our behalf.

Then the community can come out and vote and confirm which they think are ultimately the best choices.

I've got no love for the Liberals—zero—but the map's pretty clear that whoever it was who came out to the polls in BC's rural interior, with the exception of our pocket in the southeast, they were swinging hard for the Liberals. Big, fat, money-grubbing, resource-sucking, democracy-deaf red all over the place...

A little proportional representation would go a long way towards dealing with tiny margins that turn into hefty majorities, and it might inspire more people to vote too.

Valid points, Sjeng. But how do you square the circle of knowing a candidate based on the policies advocated by the party under whose banner she is running, when that same candidate, after being elected, is free to take a position at odds with that promoted by the party?

An example of that was the dilemma created for the Conservative candidate in the Skeena riding. The Conservative Party supported Enbridge's Northern Gateway project, but their local candidate stated his opposition to it. When questioned by local media, his explanation was that under the policies of his party, elected representatives would have the freedom to represent their constituents when that position is in conflict with the party's stand (I don't know, but I must assume that he was not lying).

So, pro or con Northern Gateway, how does a voter determine which way a vote will be cast on D-Day? How does an elected MLA determine what her constituents want, after the election, if not by referendum?

"A Corporation has the same legal status as an individual, and that is a serious problem."

That statement, Charles, needs close attention because it does not mean what it says.

The "same legal status" does not imply equality. Corporations do not age, hitting one below the belt does not constitute common assault, and killing one does not amount to murder.

As the 19th century US labour organization "Knights of Labor" warned in its first constitution:

"The alarming development and aggressiveness of great capitalists and corporations, unless checked, will inevitably lead to the pauperization and hopeless degradation of the working masses."

Many in Bangladesh today would agree.

There was a time when powerful politicians recognized the problem. Andrew Jac kson, 7th US President, in his 1837 farewell address:

"... unless you become more watchful in your States and check this spirit of monopoly and thirst for exclusive privileges you will in the end find that the most important powers of Government have been given or bartered away, and the control of your dearest interests have been passed into the hands of these corporations."

Amen! (What response to Jackson's warning is reasonable today?)  

I absolutely respect your right to share your opinion. On most anything I respect your analysis, your dedication and your determination to be part of the change you wish to see.

On this, however, my life history, my personal, familial and social learning, together with my experience as a worker in industry tells me that my vote has made a difference, it does make a difference and it will make a difference.

With all the respect i can muster, the time for sober reflection is long before election day, or night.

garbage gobblers!

http://farm8.staticflickr.com/7155/6743268645_d89f000eba_z.jpg

Sad to see all our media so bought and sold by the corporate lobby.

This article is nothing but blatant fear mongering with nothing but conjecture and fear mongering backing it up.

I'll never vote Liberal, unless it means stopping Harper, who is by far, based wholly on his actions in office, the most dangerous affront to Canada and Canadian democratic process who ever was.

Had you asked that question, Paul, you would most likely have received the kind of answers I look for in such meetings: answers that give a hint of how a candidate thinks, of how a candidate may respond to as yet unknown future situations. Beware however, the thumbs count on my comment suggests that this may not be a popular approach to candidate selection.

Hi Tracey-
Thanks for your heartfelt and heartrending email. I remember well all your hard work and physical suffering for Greener Footprints and your incredible success at raising awareness.

While there were many engaged community members present tonight in council chambers to argue passionately, as you have done, to maintain the SC mgr as an outside position, the motion to reinstate funding was defeated 4:3. As Councillor Spearn said, she was embarrassed by the decision. Me too. In my opinion, (the mayor likes to insist that I qualify my statements) it was a shortsighted and very biased decision. Visionary or even thougthtful is not a word I would apply to the discussion.

We are faced with looming debt and aging infrastructure its true, but a strategic plan to address these issues creatively will (hopefully) be discussed soon. This drastic cut to the SC could have waited until we formulated an overall plan. In the meantime, the cuts to community groups are mostly symbolic- the groups only represent a small % of our budget and in the big picture these cuts won't have much effect on anything except the groups themselves and the hours of work they do for the community.  Not the best way to encourage volunteerism. Whole areas of the budget were untouched; sacred cows or protected by contracts. It's an upside down world for sure. And remember, when all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. 'nuff said.

Take care and I hope your health remains strong.
km

Dear Community- I sent these remarks to Tracey after the meeting but some of my fellow councillors thought I was accusing them of being narrow minded and that I was belittling them. This was cited as a reason that I do not get support at council.  

I pointed out to council, and I want to make sure anyone reading this understands, that I was referring to the decisions and the discussions not the people. The distinction is important. Clearly we all know smart and broadminded people who have made boneheaded decisions.

The other point is more disturbing - support around the council table should be predicated on the merits not the personality or communication style of the one presenting the matter. (In my opinion, of course!) It was suggested that I don't understand the importance of building functional relationships. I do appreciate civil discourse and the lively debate of the issues. I have to admit the relationship part is not the most essential to me. Like family, you don't get to choose the members, you just have to deal with it. I communicate in a direct manner but I think I am generally civil and respectful (but I'm only human and being on council can try one's patience at times).

Anyway...gotta run!

I really hope some one steps up to continue the coverage of council as well the other interesting things that go on around town. Andrew has done a terrific job covering council meetings and our decisons. (It helps that he has  a tape recorder so he can get those quotes verbatim). Thank you Andrew for all your efforts over the last couple of years. I wish you well with your farm and family.

It's been said at council meetings that some of the issues in town get blown up because of the Telegraph coverage. In my opinion (just so no one gets the idea that what I say is somehow not my opinion!) that is simply a case of shooting the messenger.

The reality is that the without the investigative efforts of the Telegraph, many issues at city hall would never see the light of day. Yes, one could say there would be no controversy in the mountain kingdom, we could all bask in ignorant bliss, but one could not say our principles of an open and transparent democracy were being well served. Which scenario would you prefer?

Come on somebody! Step up to the plate and take over from Andrew. Council doesn't bite... at least not too hard. :)