Other Stories
-
by Andrew Bennett on May 16 2013 -
by Andrew Bennett on May 16 2013 -
by Rossland Recreation on May 15 2013 -
by Nelson Daily staff on May 13 2013 -
by Adrian Barnes on May 13 2013
Opinions
-
by Kyra Hoggan on Monday May 20 2013 -
by John King on Thursday May 16 2013 -
by Kyra Hoggan on Wednesday May 15 2013
-
by Andre Carrel on Tuesday May 14 2013 -
by Charles Jeanes on Tuesday May 14 2013
Agreement on arena scandal action crumbles into acrimony as council meeting comes to a close
by Andrew Bennett on 01 Feb 2013
Coun. Cary Fisher
"I had an ah-ha moment last week in an email exchange with a citizen," Coun. Kathy Moore said during Members' Reports, towards the end of a three-hour council meeting on Monday evening, and just before council adjourned to an in camera discussion on labour relations.
Moore argued that part of the problem that exacerbated the arena scandal is the "culture of council" to defer to staff without question and to strike defensive postures when talking with citizens.
Her comments ignited a heated response from Coun. Cary Fisher in particular, but also Coun. Jody Blomme, and Coun. Jill Spearn, who Moore mentioned directly in her comments.
Moore began, "I believe council has been manipulated into being a very dysfunctional group, against our own better natures—because I agree with Coun. Fisher, we are good people."
"Part of this is that we've been encouraged to unquestioningly trust our professional staff. This attitude has been taken to extremes and we've had some unfortunate results," she said.
"And here's the perfect example. Coun. Spearn, I'm not picking on you," Moore said, "but I'm going to use you as an example."
Moore quoted from a response Spearn had given to one citizen's letter on the arena issue: "You said in part: 'I was blindsided, because…I trusted staff to give us information if something was awry. We were reassured that it was fine. I, unlike K. Moore, took the high road and believed what I was told. Silly me, that would be my Canadian upbringing.'"
"Now," explained Moore (a citizen of both Canada and the US), "I don't believe Coun. Spearn came up with the idea that questioning staff was not only taking the 'low road,' but was also 'un-Canadian.' But I think this attitude is extremely dysfunctional."
"I've seen it around the table,” she said. “Personally, I have been used wrongly as an example of how not to behave as a councillor many times. And by everyone accepting that message and rarely saying anything against that message, council's been silenced."
"After all," she said, "who wants to be treated the way I've been treated by this group and others? I think that what ended up happening on this was that my views on just about everything—from the arena to the contracting, to the hiring, to everything else—has been discounted as the ranting of a troublemaker."
"To be compared to Laurie Charlton," she said, "to be told I'm a liar, to be told I'm a rogue councillor, to be told all these things that have come out of various people at various times, that's not a good thing."
"I think we've become a very insular group, and we listen mostly to ourselves," Moore said. "I think that's dangerous. I think there's been a lot of defensive posturing by council when we talk to citizens, those of us who do. And granted, not all of us do, I think that's part of the issue."
"We've got this culture of silence," she said, "We're not questioning staff, we're not being candid with people. I want us to think about this and see if we can't somehow reset the way we deal with each other.
"I know, I know, you don't believe any of my apologies are sincere, we've been through that Cary," she said to Fisher. "I do believe that we're all good people and we all care deeply for the community, but I think we've done a disservice over this past year."
Coun. Cary Fisher won't swallow it
"Can I please make a comment?" Fisher said. "You had a motion supported today, you had everybody on council talking about moving forward, and then you hammer this stuff again?"
"Perhaps the distrust or dislike or whatever you want to call it, is well-founded. How can you trust someone when you talk to them in private and then they come to a meeting and do what you just did again?" Fisher asked. "And you do it all the time."
"I gotta tell you," he said. "I came to this meeting totally open-minded, let's go ahead and get things going, let's make things better. Then, here you are again, smacking people around, and I'll speak frankly: you're just not a team player."
"I've been on plenty of teams. I want you to be a team player," he said. "I've coached a million people. But you're an independent person, by yourself, and you keep hammering away at us. I imagine we're all going to keep doing the best that we can for the city, but at some point you've got to say, 'Okay, look: spoke to the RCMP, doing the Delegation Bylaw, [inspecting the arena].’ But it wasn't good enough."
"And now you're stepping on people again. So, I don't know, I'm not going to sit here and swallow it."
Moore responded, "I appreciate support one evening out of the year."
"You're doing it again," Fisher said, "you're doing it again."
"But it's true," Moore said.
"You're doing it again," Fisher said, "it's almost embarrassing. To me, it's almost embarrassing. Truthfully."
"People have said, 'Okay, we've made a mistake.' I said it in public. And you've said nothing about that. You didn't say anything. You didn't say, 'Oh, well, great.' All you do is come back and do this," he said.
Fisher voted against Moore's motion two weeks ago to apologize to Rosslanders for the way council has handled the arena scandal.
"If you actually want to work together, then accept what people have just done and say, 'Okay, I want to move on.' That, what you just did, that's not moving on. That's just pouring salt in the wound," Fisher said. "Come on, it's not even adult."
Coun. Jill Spearn feels pity
"I'm not defending what I write," Spearn said, "because I believe, fundamentally, that I'm different because of my Canadian upbringing. And I say that to my American friends, and we have good debates and disagreements. I fundamentally believe that."
"It's obvious to me tonight," she continued, "after going through all this stuff as Coun. Fisher just said, that you have to pour that out: poor, poor pitiful me. I feel embarrassed too, and I regret that you have to do that. I guess I feel sorry you have to do that, actually. It's kind of pitiful. If that's the way you need to do it, then go ahead.
"I'm tough, and you know I'm tough. And I've sat here and agreed with you and disagreed with you and everybody else, and I'm okay with that. And I'm actually pretty confident in who I am," she said.
"What do you want from us?" Spearn asked. "I'm a team player, and most people on council are team players. And if you can go out and read about being a team player, learn to be a team player, then maybe that would help all of us."
"I'm not going to get into a big name-calling thing, because sometimes it's just personalities, sometimes it's beliefs and values, and sometimes it's how we present ourselves. What you want to do when you bring that up—and I don't even care that you brought up me, because, whatever—that does not help your cause."
"And you certainly shouldn't be bringing up private emails at the council table. But I'm okay with it," she said. "I don't have a problem with it."
Coun. Jody Blomme has no favourites
"There's so much to talk about there," Blomme said, "but to try to condense it, I find that I've long-since decided, coming into this I decided, it's my role, my job, to take every situation that comes to council individually. And I feel strongly that I do."
"It's our job to disagree with each other so that we entertain all sides of every situation. And to disagree with each other functionally. And then to walk away from here as a group," she said.
"I was voted in to think as an individual but to work as a group. And I feel comfortable that I'm doing that. Each one of you here, I've disagreed with at times, and I've voted against at times, including staff, including the mayor. But, each one of you I've also agreed with."
"There's no favourites," she said. "I'm not more likely to agree with Coun. Moore as Coun. Wallace, because I prefer Coun. Moore or something. That doesn't come to bear. Every situation is dealt with separately, we have a responsibility to do so, and I think we all do so."
"I don't understand why you think there's some campaign against, I don't know—that it's some kind of popularity contest," Blomme concluded.
Virtual Paperboy
Navigation
Comments
Team Comments
As I have said on more than one occasion in council Cathy Moore was correct to press this issue forward. As a council we were incorrect in not forcing staff to review this issue sooner thru a motion. Of course I wish a motion was put forward earlier to review the arena project. As a councillor I apologize for not putingt the motion forward myself sooner. However I did put the motion forward and we are reviewing the project thru a third party. The skeptics will have a go at me because there was such a lag but I hope that if you read on you will gain some insight from my perspective.
My team comments at council were not one of making council decisions but one of building trust and respecting each others views. I feel that when council started putting an action plan into place we could move forward.
Councillor Moore had already scoulded council at a previous session post my motion. When that occured I was able to admit again in a meeting that we did not react in an apporiate way. However, I believe that once the issue was voted on and her latest motion was passed and the review of the areana project was underway we should start focusing on ways to move forward and make the operations at the City better.
The public is right to hold us accountable and to expect us to deal with issues like this in an appropriate timely manner. What I took issue with is the public admonishment more than a couple times by councilor Moore. The context of this is important in building Team trust. The team aspect is not one of acting independently. It is more subtle than that. We should disagree and scould from time to time. However when it is over then it should be over so that wounds heal. Council and the community need to find out the details of this issue. I have been told that we will see something in a couple weeks from a third party.
Context is very important in this discussion. Jason Ward was hired by a former council. The arena project was undertaken during a former councils term. In no way does this excuse the current council nor is meant as a crutch for me to lean on. They are just facts. As I recall the first or second meeting I attended Cathy Moore brought this issue up. There was a heated debate between the Mayor and Cathy Moore. The debate was distasteful on both sides. Not long after that Jason Ward left the City. Most of you are thinking this is a Red Flag. It was and from my perspective more should have been done at that point. At that point I started thinking that if somehting was indeed wrong then we need to do something. However, it was rightfully pointed out that labour issue's cannot be discussed in public. I can't even write about what was discussed. All this starts to make an individual council member look around the room and question who do you trust. Who is actually telling you the straight goods. Better yet does anyone actually know what is really going on. It also makes you question the things that are not said. I am only speaking for myself but I am sure the other new councilors may have been thinking the same. Please remember in this there is a delegation bylaw and we are not supposed to speak to any employees except the CAO. That bylaw is a whole other issue that we are looking to remedy.
My out was the audit. I strongly beileived that the City Audit would reveal enough to force this issue to another level. As you all know the Audit did not really reveal enough. At that point I was frustrated. Again, I should have put a motion forward to inspect the work. It was simple and should have been done. It would cost us very little and it would have put my mind at ease. I wanted to use the audit as a mechanism to start to build trust.
The dysfunction in this situation boils down to trust. Council needs to rebuild both trust and respect within its chamber. When that occurs we can begin to build trust in the community.
To the community, while I do apologize for not putting a motion forward earlier, I hope that through this post you can see that the issue comes with many threads. Please also keep in mind that a person in a position of Trust commited an unethical act under the supervision of a previous administration.
The good news is that I beleive that we will get the real information from our third party review of the project. I also believe that we will review internal processes for contracts and other matters. We have already committed to reviewing the delagtion bylaw.
I sincerely ran for council to make Rossland a better placeand so did the other councilors. As it stands there is great work going on by councilor Spearn and the NOL committee fighting to keep K-12 in our community, Councilor Thatcher is working with the Mayor, Teck and the Museum Society on saving our Museum. Councilor Bloome is working with Tourism Rossland to showcase Rossland to the world in creative ways like the Canada Am event. Councilor Wallace is fighting for Rossland at the Regional District with complicated issues like Sewer, Fire and a whole host of inter community relationships. Councilor Moore is also doing good work keeping us accountable.
I sincerley hope that the community sees everthing council is working toward on the communities behalf. There is far more than i have highlighted and I am sorry if I have not acknowledged all the good deeds.
I would encourage people to continue to pay attention and keep us on the right track but also ask yourself what have you done for our town to make it better.
Sincerly
Cary Fisher,
Council Member
Thanks Coun. Fisher
From my perspective, your comments here are well-received, thank you for your apology regarding your much-delayed action on this issue.
If you want the straight goods, I'd suggest you're not going to get it from the mayor. Back in September 2011, he told me (and everyone else) with a straight face that Jason had left for personal reasons. Maybe that would have been acceptable if he'd told council the real story in private. But he didn't. That's called lying, and it was a betrayal of council's rights.
Then, while it may have been a "decision of council," I hold him responsible for the inappropriate way the new CAO was hired, by Victor's appointment rather than a public posting, and for the way her salary and Tracey Butler's salary sky-rocketed to the absurd.
And look how he proceeded with the swimming pool brain fart without telling a soul! Then, after promising council he wouldn't "drop the ball" like that in the future, he continued to obstruct Kathy Moore and obfuscate for council, creating the "distasteful disagreements" to which you allude, positioning council against her until such a time as public outcry brought you guys to your senses!
So what, Greg's allowed to go pink in the face and yell, but Kathy's not allowed to make a pointed, truthful comment?
Then the mayor holds a public meeting in which he made a genuine farce of his office, doubling-down on the incompetence the next morning for the CBC. The only thing "terrible," as Coun. Blomme called it—although I seem to recall she left quite early on—about that meeting was the mayor himself, giving a crowd who came for answers absolutely nothing at all.
He lost my trust during the swimming pool issue last year when he brushed it off onto a budget line item that was intended for something completely different. Reading into Rossland's history he lost other people's trust long before that. And it seems he's managed to lose many other people's trust since. So, if you really do want the straight goods...
As for "scolding," this was Kathy Moore's first chance to let the public know what's been going on regarding the embarrassing lack of council support (or comprehension) she's received. It wasn't a scolding so much as important information that's highly relevant to a much-needed change in council culture, in addition to inspections and a Delegation Bylaw review.
We're not privy to the in camera meetings where this conversation may have played out already. Nevertheless, as I've said elsewhere she was direct but fair and civil.
(And I've listened to the tape again since. You'll have to admit I'm the only Rosslander other than Arne who gets to relive council again and again.)
The correct response was, "Yes, Kathy, you're right. We did make a mistake not listening to you earlier, and not following up on very suspicious circumstances right away. We're sorry we didn't, but can we move on now?"
Your comments, however, were not civil. They made me squirm in my seat from how inappropriate and bullying it sounded. Tough guy jock talk, particularly as you received telepathic support from the other seats on council.
You have a point, for sure, that a time comes to move on. You thought that time had come. Kathy did not. There were much better ways to make your point.
Overall, however, your most important point above is to remind the public that you and the others at council are genuinely trying to do your best for our community, and there are many important initiatives being advanced by different council members.
Thank you for your service. I know you and the others work hard and try your best.
And thank you for your most apt nod to JFK... Ask not what Rossland can do for you...
The Genuine Article
Andrew, with reference to your comment about council members being sorry, let me rephrase what I meant to phrase in my response to Rosa's comments.
If all seven members of council - mayor and councillors - were to stand in front of an assembly of Rossland citizens, and then were to individually, personally, and in unison apologize to the community for having dropped the ball, it would mean nothing. It would be political theatre.
On the other hand, if one council member were to move a resolution at an open council meeting, a resolution offering an apology to the community for council having dropped the ball, acknowledging that the buck stops not with the CAO or the building inspector, it stops with council, and that resolution were then be seconded by another member of council, and the vote went 4 in favour and 3 opposed, the resolution would be adopted and with that Council would have apologized to the community. That 3 members of that council would have voted against the resolution would not affect the value of the apology one iota. Council would have spoken.
All the chatter on these pages by members of council is just that: chatter. You will have to wait for the next council meeting to find out where council stands in all of this.
I guess what stumps me is
I guess what stumps me is that Coun. Fisher recognizes there was a mistake, a failure of council. And he says he's sorry for his part in that failure.
But he also spoke strongly against the 'apology motion' in January and was one of the four votes that defeated it.
Huh?
And I would really appreciate more chatter from councillors on these pages. Cary's most recent comment, for example, really did help me understand better where he's coming from, even if it still doesn't make complette sense to me.
Back to Basics
Just a few points to keep in mind:
As it concerns matters that, according to the Community Charter, MUST be dealt with behind closed doors by a council, they are listed in section 90(2). There is a whole bunch of stuff listed in section 90(1) that a council MAY deal with in a closed meeting. MAY and MUST ain't the same thing, may means that council has some discretion. Too often (in my experience) section 90 serves as an excuse to lock the door and avoid publicity.
Look at Charter section 114(2): "Despite a change in its membership, the council of a municipality is a continuing body and may complete any proceedings started but not completed before the change."
And then take a look at section 114(3): "The powers, duties and functions of a municipality are to be exercised and performed by its COUNCIL [emphasis added], except as otherwise provided under this or another Act, and a COUNCIL, in exercising or performing its powers, duties and functions, is acting as the governing body of the municipality.
Now go on to read section 115, it spells out the responsibilities of EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER, which includes the mayor, and the section 116 where the responsibilities a mayor has, in addition to his/her responsibilities as a member of council, are listed.
Council is one body, and it is ongoing. There is no such thing as "the last council did it" because there is no last council. There is only one Rossland council, it goes on and on without interruption, even as its members may come and go.
When you read section 115 carefully, you'll discover that individual council members do not do anything on their own beyond what their responsibility to "contribute to the development and evaluation of policies and programs" of the municipality. Whatever a council member does outside a council meeting, be that at the regional district or at the chamber of commerce, is done not by that council member, it is done on behalf of the council and as "assigned by the council."
I know that it is tough to get ones head around the basic principles of what a council is. References to teams and the hard work individual members of council do around the community are distractions. Citizens do not elect a team. Citizens VOTE for individuals, people they trust, but they ELECT a council.
Over my head
You're right, Andre, that is a hard concept to get ones head around. Or I should say, I get the concept, but not what this has to do with real life. As far as I'm concerned, individual councillors DO act individually (even if the end result is whatever the majority decides it will be). Thus they deserve to be held individually responsible for the good or not-so-good to which they contribute.
I think what Jody is trying to tell us is that he and other members are trying. Whether individual councillors contribute what's needed to make the soup they're serving citizens palatable probably depends on the recipe they follow. Financial accountability, for example. Transparency, for example. And above all, attentiveness to the business at hand. Working with closed eyes or inattention is not, as Jody indicates and apologizes for, part of any recipe where good results are desired. Not in soup-making and not in Council decisions.
It is really quite simple
What a council member says or does outside of council meeting - in these pages, for example - is has nothing to do with "The Council" it is pure politics. Repeat, it has nothing to do with "The Council".
When a council member attends a meeting of the RDKB, School Board, Chamber of Commerce, and does so at the direction of "The Council" (section 115 (d)), whatever that council member says or does at that meeting is being said or done not by the delivery agent but by "The Council".
Whatever a council member says or does at a meeting of "The Council" - between call to order and adjournment - is to "contribute to the development and evaluation of policies and programs of the municipality" (section 115(b)).
An apology from an individual member of council in these pages is nice, but that's just politics. That should not be confused with a member of council contributing "to the evaluation of policies and programs of the municipality" in the course of a meeting by moving that "The Council" apologize to the community because, having evaluated what has occurred, "The Council" has come to the conclusion that, as it concerns certain matters, "The Council" fail to "give good government of its community" (sec. 7(a)) - which would lead to a resolution to extend an apology of "The Council" to the community.
to the Laurie Charlton fan club
I've been asked what exactly I meant by saying "being compared to Laurie Charlton was not a good thing". Here is my explanation: Around the council table being compared to LC appears to be shorthand for being a nitpicking, perfectionist, trouble maker. Just my opinion, of course. The irony is that I find some strong similarities in the way I have been treated to the way Laurie was treated when he was on council in the past. I also believe that Laurie has been more effective outside of council in getting his message and concerns communicated. Who knows, maybe I would be too.
Laurie Charlton and Mela Pyper
You know what's great, Kathy, you're not afraid to tackle an issue. Head on, with integrity. There's never "no comment" from you, and I think people really resonate to that.
As for Laurie, I have to agree with Rosa, he is an incredible resource. He's a wealth of information, from history to law to chemistry, and he's helpful to many people, tirelessly so, including me whenever I ask.
Looking back, however, I was there when Laurie raised issues such as Jason Ward's cellphone, but was fought down by the mayor and CAO.
Unfortunately, in retrospect, I was overly distracted and taken aback by Laurie's nails-on-chalkboard style, so I missed important messages. I'd say it was the right information, the wrong presentation. Perhaps too much detail and not enough point. Or too many points. It felt gratingly holier-than-thou, not nuanced and bitingly diplomatic. So the message was lost on me and many others.
I'm not trying to make an excuse but to point out that there are many ways to disagree or debate, and it's most important to listen. I've certainly had my share of disagreements that I wish I could disagree about all over again in a better way.
But a politician should be politic: sensible, judicious, prudent, sagacious.
It's certainly not up to me, but perhaps Laurie is far more effective as an advisor, an elder statesman, than as a diplomat in duty on the front lines of Rossland Council.
Here's an interesting analogy to your Kathy-Laurie comparison. I've heard, notably from City Hall, a comparison bandied about between myself and one Mela Pyper. So the myth goes—I don't know Mela or her work at all—she was a "journalist" of dastardly bias and ravenous ulterior motives.
Last year, in conversation with a councillor who had accused me of bias and ulterior motives, I asked where my writing went wrong. Please show me, I asked. After pressing the truth was out: the councillor "hadn't read the articles." For lack of time, as I recall. But they knew it was so all the same, no reading required.
Even as I have to laugh at myself for even wasting a moment's thought on this "Mela" comparison, given the oven that cooked it, while looking into her past a little I came across this prescient gem by Andre Carrel in 2008.
It's a letter to the editor when Mela Pyper was running against Greg Granstrom for mayor. Apart from noting her support for the Constitution Bylaw, it's not an endorsement for Mela so much as a stomp on Greg.
Carrel writes, "Greg has a track record of ignoring the will of the people, going so far as to remove their democratic right to express the will of the community in a calm and rational manner and withholding critical information from the people."
Hmmm, "...and withholding critical information from the people." Yes, and how many times now.
Kathy, your politic manners and dogged determination are a winning combo, I'm pleased you're on council. The ship has started to turn about.
Laurie Charlton
Laurie was a council member for a number of terms during my years as Rossland's administrator. Your observations about Laurie are quite correct: he is a fountain of knowledge and his council experience is unequalled. I would guess that Laurie may well be the longest serving Rossland council member alive today.
Your observations about Laurie's diplomatic qualities are equally correct. Laurie is not the kind of guy I would go to for help in mediating a family dispute.
There is one aspect to Laurie's contribution to council discussions I found to work to his disadvantage. For Laurie things are either right or they are wrong. Whether a meeting is called to order at 6:59 p.m. when it is supposed to start at 7:00 p.m., or whether the administrator forged the mayor's signature, in terms of Laurie's dealing with the issue there is no graduation.
I suspect that this kind of right-is-right-and-wrong-is-wrong approach to issues is what eventually leads to a "Here-he-goes-again!" response and attitude from other councillors. Their ear and eye shutters are activated automatically. The cell phone story example you give would tend to confirm that.
The "Laurie Charlton comparison"
You're probably right, Kathy, when you say many people mean all those negatives when they compare someone to Laurie Charlton. However, some of us see far more similarities in the way other council members stonewalled each of you over long periods of time and made it difficult if not impossible for you to access information you needed to do your job as representatives of "we the people."
As far as I can tell, the main reason you have been more successful than Laurie is because the issues you raised (many of which Laurie raised long ago) are now so serious that a large number of citizens have finally got off its collective backside to support you in looking into some of them, whereas that never happened for Laurie, even though he did frequently communicate his concerns (which should have been our concerns) clearly to the public .
My interaction with Laurie, on and off Council, has been the same; namely, his readiness to provide me with directions to publicly available documents on whatever issue I was concerned about at the time, be that watershed regulations, bylaws, Official Community Plan details, or some obscure motion passed at a long-ago Council meeting.
In fact, anyone who is concerned about the issues raised by Ken Holmes in his letter posed today titled, "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball--but Which Ball?" would do well to start by asking Laurie (and Ken, of course) for any details they might already have compiled. Neither have all the answers, of course, but they do have some, plus can provide guidance on where to go for more.
As a final comparision, I would say that both you and Laurie are great resources for citizens who are interested in the municipal issues and want, above all, more transparency in government.
Dominant Coalition
There are many ways a "team" can go wrong. The creation of a Dominant Coalition is one and it appears to be what has formed here. (BTW, Councillor Fisher) One vote will not erase Councillor Moore's feelings and perceptions about her treatment over the past year.
In my opinion, there needs to be radical change to get this back on track. The Mayor indicated at the town meeting and later he is not capable or willing to make changes (and frankly doesn't see the need - business as usual for him). Now it is the responsibility of Council. Council should ask for Mayor Granstrom's resignation. This scandal is very negative for Rossland. It will have reprecussions in tourism, growth, grant giving, etc. Imagine how painful it is going to be for Citizens to receive tax notices this Spring - in the context of this incompetence and waste. The only thing more painful will be is if nothing changes and no one is held accountable.
Maybe we need another parade...
Maybe we need another parade...waiting outside of the next council meeting to show just how many people represent the "majority". Maybe that will clear things up for them on how many people want accountability for wrong doing with our tax money.
If their is no accountability you set a precedence that it's "Ok" to fraud a little the City of Rossland, because even if you get caught, the city officials will sit quiet.
Speaking Up
I certainly hope that council does not agree on all things. In fact to do so would be dangerous. I want and expect that there will be debate and questioning and counselors willing to be brave enough to speak out when something isn’t right. That is called integrity.
Our council should be a reflection of the people that they were elected to represent, not a homogenous little group.
Seems to me that Councilor Moore is a straight shooter who isn’t willing to sit back and be told what to do. Good on her. The people of Rossland would be well served if there were more like her willing to run for office.
possible new council
If this keeps up, we might have to have a vote of no confidence and get a new council & a mayor who actually listens to the residents, try to get things done and get new events into the city.
Two years from now, sure
It seems to have escaped your notice, Sean Bateman, that there is no "vote of no confidence" process whereby citizens can depose an elected mayor and council. Our only opportunity to express confidence or lack of confidence in our elected officials comes at election time, which in the case of Rossland is almost two years away.
In the meantime, it is my perception that the mayor and most members of council ARE now listening to residents. What they will get done I don't know, because like most people in town, I do not know whether they screwed up because they were dumb, lazy, confused, unsure of themselves, boondoggled by an aggressive CAO, or some combination of the above. What we do know is that that CAO is gone and our elected officials have had a wakeup call.
As for getting things done and get new events into the city, I don't know that Council has ever stopped trying to do that. But if you take a look at the list of costs that have been loaded onto taxpayers in the past couple of years (see Ken Holmes' Feb 6 letter, "Keeping Our Eye on the Ball--but Which Ball?") , it should be clear to you that with such a financial burden it's going to be difficult for the municipality to even stay afload, let alone "get things done and get new events to the city."
As long as municipal resources are being used to subsidize developers and maintain an outrageously oversized, overpaid staff, those things and events you'd like see just may have to come from the citizens to whom they matter, and not from City Hall. Unless, of course, citizens decide they want priorities changed and make sure their Council understands that.
Canadian values?
If Canadian values include blindly following orders then 'pitying' people who disagree with us when it all goes wrong, all the while making blanket statements about our low-roading neighbours to the south, I think I'll consider moving to Northport.
It's ironic that some people claim honest coverage of a major scandal is bad for tourism while, at the same time, one of our own councillors is slagging off a huge chunk of our tourism base while claiming publicly that she is 'fundamentally different' from them...
Not the right messenger
Well, about half way through my comments on Monday night about what I perceive to be a bad case of council dysfunction I found myself regretting bringing it up. Not that I don't think its true, but because it was late, everyone was very tired and let's face it: I am not the right person to make any observations about the group dynamics or organizational culture of this council. As one can tell from the comments of my fellow councillors, I am often perceived as the problem, I am not a teamplayer, sometimes I'm not even Canadian. (Though my mother, born in Toronto, might quibble).
I am the first to admit, this is partly my fault- I have repeatedly crticized the decisions of council and how we were manipulated by our previous CAO. I make no excuse for that. I know the general rule of councils is to support the decisions of the majority despite how one might feel personally. I will freely say, "yes, that was the decision of council" but I will not say I agree with it if I don't. That doesn't make the decision wrong, it just means I have a different opinion about it. When asked, I can explain the decision and I can explain my opposition. To do otherwise, to my mind, is to patronize members of the community. The groupspeak idea has never appealed to me. I trust the citizens to understand that the decisions we make at council are almost never unanimous, nor should they be. To anyone who asks, I'll give an explanation and that explanation will naturally include more than one perspective.
I'm guessing that one problem on Monday night was that by being such an inappropriate messenger, Council stopped listening to my words about a dysfunctional organization and just heard criticisms of themselves personally. It was never personal for me and it never has been. As I said, it was late and everyone was tired. While I do think its an important concept for the group to contemplate, I used poor judgment in bringing it up, especially on a night when the vote was 6:1 for a motion I put forward. There seemed to be a sense that I was ungrateful for the support that was shown. While I was very pleased the motion passed, I did not view it as support for me, it was supported because it was the right thing to do for the community. We could use a good therapist, I don't think a group hug will do the trick.
All kidding aside, I want to point out that this council is taking the heat for some policies voted in by the last council; Councillors Blomme, Thatcher and Fisher are not responsible for those actions. I was a council member, and share the blame for those decisions. That is one reason that I am so adament about fixing as many of those problems as we can; I feel responsible. I can give you some very plausible reasons why those decisions were made but that doesn't make them right. Based on my previous term on council, I fell far short of being willing to continue to "trust our professional staff" this time. You know the old saying: "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice shame on me!" It is important to note that when I say "professional staff" I mean our previous CAO; the rest of our city employees are terrific people, dedicated to the community. The manipulation came very effectively from the top.
Importantly, my hope is that with the new administration, headed by Ms Arnott and Ms Butler, Council will able to reinstate some more reasonable policies and practices that will enable us to have more open discussions of all the issues and make better decisions. I have seen signs of this new era of openess already and I am encouraged. I am hopeful that as unfortunate as recent issues have been, they have served to educate all of us on council of the need to take back some control and oversight to ensure that we are making decisions in the community's best interest.
Thank you Councilor Moore
I feel that we are extremely privileged to have a person like you on council. Of course you are not perfect and you will make mistakes, as you are the first one to accept humbly.
However you have a great combination of analytical skills, common sense, integrity to get additional information if you do not understand. Combine this with the courage and integrity (this is such an important quality in this difficult environment) and courage to take the necessary actions as required by the situation.
Of course we are a very diverse community. Not everyone believes in the same religion (or any religion) we don’t vote for the same provincial and federal political parties, we don’t pursue the same hobbies and we have different values on so many topics.
Each member of council has the responsibility to:
· fully understand what they are voting on.
· Make sure that they contribute to the council their optic on each point
· That they keep an open mind while their learn more about the topic from the presentation of the other members of the council
· Eventually make their own decision independently and vote accordingly.
These discussions should be in full respect of each participant. The mayor has a key role in making sure to be a catalyst and leader to make sure that we get as much input from each of the participants.
I feel that we are also privileged that a group of citizen gives so much of their time to be on the council. Thank you very much to all of you. I hope that you are aware that the comments of regular citizen, not courageous enough to do what your you are doing, (lack of commitment, time or confidence in their skills) are a contribution to hope that maybe some of the ideas and suggestions posted will help you to have a more complete perspective on various situations.
Lack of leadership
First of all, I love this little town and I say it all the time to friends, family and acquantainces inside or outside the province.
Keep that in mind as I make my point...
If not for the Rossland Telegraph's efforts, and the subsequent commentaries, I would be completely unaware of the scandalous affairs that have been going on over the last few years. Certainly, we were completely oblivious to all this nonsense when we moved to Rossland 1.5yrs ago.
As a passive observer throughout this embarrassing fiasco, I keep thinking the same thing - "What the heck is going on within the City and within the Council?"
With each passing week that same thought gets more and more entrenched and I'm nearly at the point of disbelief over the level of dysfunction and lack of leadership and professionalism.
Could someone, anyone, at an actionable level show some basic leadership skills and get this train wreck back on to what should be an obvious forward path.
Shaun Taylor
Back to Basics
The responsibilities of council members are listed in section 115 of the Community Charter:
"Every council member has the following resopnsibilities:
(a) to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality and its community;
(b) to contribute to the development and evaluation of the policies and programs of the municipality respecting its services and other activities;
(c) to participate in council meetings, committee meetings and meetings of other bodies to which the member is appointed;
(d) to carry out other duties assigned by the council;
(e) to carry out other duties assigned under this or any other Act."
B.C. municipal councils (with few exceptions, e.g. Vancouver) are made up of individuals. There are no political parties, no "teams" elected at the municipal level.
The Charter clearly states that members of council, individually, have a responsibility to consider the well-being and interests of the municipality and its community and to contribute to the development and evaluation of policies and programs.
If civic political parties had been organized in Rossland, and if candidates had run on party tickets, one could reasonably expect council members so elected to be "team players", but such is not the case.
There is a difference between a municipal council and a hockey team.
Every member of council - that includes councillors and the mayor - has an individual and personal responsibility to "contribute to the development" of policies and programs, and to contribute to their evaluation (evaluation ought to be in bold print and underlined). Each member of council must, individually and personally, consider the well-being and interests of the municipality and its community. There is no reference to "the team" in section 115.
Rossland council has no choice but to deal with the consequences of the arena thing, one way or the other. The possibilities for dealing with that matter range from sweeping it under the rug to forensic examination and full public disclosure.
Where Rossland council does have a choice is whether to limit itself to dealing with the consequences of the arena thing, or to "evaluate" the cause or causes of the arena becoming a thing, and to develop new policies to reduce the likelyhood of a "here we go again" event.
The bottom line, however, is that the law - namely the Community Charter - assigns to EVERY COUNCIL MEMBER - not the team - a set of responsibilities.
A copy of CC sec. 115 ought to be prominent on each council member's desk.
team players
it seems you are not a team player when you disagree or question someone? where is the common good of the whole town? team players are in sports, not in govornment. this would be like a one party state, and that we tend not to like.
referring to an earlier statement about bad publicity, i can't see how tracking down illegal behavior in town would adversely affect people coming for tourism, golf etc. unless they weren't team players of course.