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
COMMENT: A problematic process, but respect to the new CAO
by Andrew Bennett on 20 Sep 2012
Outgoing CAO Victor Kumar will be replaced by Cecile Arnott on Oct. 1
Dear Laurie Charlton,
I write in response to your recent condemnation of council's process in hiring our new CAO/CFO.
I've added some headings to break things up.
Yup, council screwed up
I agree. Council made a big mistake when they decided to keep CAO Victor Kumar's resignation confidential, limited their job search to a single candidate, and then failed to tell the public about it for more than two months.
From the standpoint of a democrat, this opaque hiring of a new CAO—a government position funded by six-figure taxes from a four-figure population—is utterly dissatisfying and, ultimately, disrespectful to us, the people of Rossland.
I don't understand how Mayor Greg Granstrom thinks he can paint this secrecy as "respect" for the outgoing and incoming CAO. Excuse me? If someone can explain how "respect" for these two people would have been offended by announcing a job vacancy, I'm all ears.
What about respect for those of us who pay the bills? Yes, council, we're quite pleased you've managed to eliminate a management position by combining the CAO and CFO. If one person can do it as well as two, that's fine and dandy.
Nor did we want to sit in on the interview! We just thought there might be something like a job ad in the classifieds, that's all. What about respect for all the potential CAO/CFO's out there? What about transparency and accountability?
And what about checking out the new CAO/CFO contract with an independent lawyer, as Sara Golling suggested? Did council do that? In any case, there's nothing to do now except wait until the contract is released on Oct. 1. Do you know any lawyers out there willing to do a little pro bono, post hoc contract review?
But—and this is an enormous, whopping, but—while I believe these egregious failures by council are part of an unfortunate pattern of unnecessary secrecy that has characterized Victor Kumar's leadership, these issues are absolutely, completely separate from the competence of incoming CAO/CFO Cecile Arnott.
Give peace a chance
I hope others agree with me that Ms. Arnott's next chapter in the book of Rossland is fresh and unwritten. She deserves every respect and every opportunity to fulfil her responsibilities to the town; she deserves to write her own chapter.
At this point, the signatures are on dotted lines. Council's chosen process marred her new beginning, it's true. But it was not Ms. Arnott's fault: it was council's.
I found the tone of your letter suggested that Ms. Arnott is somehow ill qualified for the job, but I didn't find your arguments at all compelling. On the contrary, the job-hopping list rather encouraged me that she has a lot of different experiences as a manager.
According to you, Ms. Arnott was CFO in Rossland when the city lowered business taxes and raised residential taxes—disproportionately towards higher valued homes, you say, due to the elimination of the Transportation Parcel Tax.
First, I have yet to verify these statements for myself. Secondly, even if these events happened, they were "decisions of council," as the mayor likes to say. Thirdly, my initial reaction is that changing taxes like that could make sense under a broad range of circumstances.
My opinion of Ms. Arnott is also influenced by an interview with her last week that we've just published. I was struck by her strong communication skills and no-nonsense style. She fielded hard questions with humour, patience, and tact.
You'll be interested to know that I asked:
"A resident wrote in, "The way council's going, rubber-stamping everything Victor and Greg say, people are going to elect Laurie Charlton because they think no one's being a watchdog." What's your experience with Laurie Charlton, and how would you plan to work with him as a councillor if he were to be elected again?"
She answered:
"Whoo. That I'm not going to comment on, since I don't think it's fair to me or to Mr. Charlton. If Mr. Charlton were back on council, I would deal with him the same way that I would deal with any other councillor, the same way that I did when he was here before: open; I have my integrity; I give professional recommendations and stand behind them. And that's all I can do, just be who I am."
At council on Monday, Coun. Jill Spearn said you harassed Ms. Arnott out of Rossland. In fact, Coun. Jill Spearn was spitting mad about your article in general. The mayor was right behind, asking council approval for a letter he'd already drafted to reject your comments. For better or for worse, you sure can ruffle feathers!
And I can see why. On the one hand, the new CAO hasn't even started her job and, according to you, she's all wrong already. That's not fair to Ms. Arnott and I share council's objection.
On the other hand, you've touched a real, genuine nerve.
Bullseye, Mr. Charlton!
Why did council keep Victor Kumar's resignation a secret? Why did they think it appropriate to fill the position without a publicly-posted vacancy followed by interviews of several candidates?
I agree with you, it's highly problematic. I feel as though some on council have an inflated impression of their right to closed-door conferences, a "governance ego," a sense of entitlement to make decisions without regard for due process. I think these councillors should revisit their philosophies of public service.
Unlike you, however, I maintain optimism that council will turn over a new leaf with a new CAO. It is absolutely possible to separate most public policy debates from questions that require tactful privacy.
The latest example, of course, is the issue of broadband. I think council’s made a great decision on the matter, but why was it debated entirely in camera?
The New Rossland Order—may it live up to council's transparent rhetoric
Yes, Mr. Charlton, I think every councillor should read section 90 of the Community Charter, which strictly governs the use of closed-door council meetings. In it, they will find that only subsections (e) and (k) could reasonably apply in this situation:
In camera meetings are permitted for:
"90 (e) the acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;"
and
"90 (k) negotiations and related discussions respecting the proposed provision of a municipal service that are at their preliminary stages and that, in the view of the council, could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality if they were held in public;"
In either case, we face the inevitable question: Why did council expect that debate on the six internet options could have harmed the interests of the municipality?
That’s right council, just blame the media
Even Coun. Spearn seems to desire a muzzled media, openly objecting to the Telegraph as a whole on the grounds that we publish your column.
Should I stop reading the Globe and Mail just because Margaret Wente is a wholesale wingnut 95 per cent of the time? In addition to fair and factual reports, we believe it is our duty to freely disseminate a wide variety of points of view—including yours, including council's, including mine, and including whoever else wants to comment.
Does Coun. Spearn think we are simple-minded folk who believe everything we read? I beg to differ: our readers have minds of their own, appreciate a broad palette of opinions to read, and form better opinions of their own as a consequence.
It’s hardly helpful to refuse to engage in a discussion just because one doesn’t agree.
So thank you Mr. Charlton for offering such intriguing fodder, much as I disagree with most of it. Debate and differences of opinion are the backbone of democracy.
Sincerely,
Andrew Bennett
Virtual Paperboy
Navigation
Comments
Council Volunteer Position?!
Jill Spearn stated:
"All said, my tough skin will continue to read, for the sake of being informed and doing my volunteer job, of 7 years, even better for all Rosslanders."
Definintion of Volunteer:
Thank you Kathy Moore
I would like to add my disappointment in our current council and CAO for their lack of transparency, accountability and basic due diligence in countless decisions. Some mentioned above and many more that were not. While council is a volunteer job as noted above, that does not give them the right to stop communicating with the public on important issues nor consider fully the implications of decisions made. Regarding communications, we get more information on paving and traffic updates than how the town is planning to pay for the upgrades given changing costs. Regarding hiring processes, having a competition would have provided our new CAO with a chance to prove her competencies rather than come in as the pick of Victor Kumar, someone who is leaving our community.
I am grateful to Councillor Kathy Moore for taking time to fully understand the implications of decisions and bringing these to council despite their lack of interest. It is disrespectful and short-sighted that our council, Mayor and CAO do not even consider the issues she brings forward. The town is lucky to have her passion and brains working for our community.
Excellent points - thanks for bringing this to light
I am very glad to see this discussion and I hope a lot of people in Rossland read it. I have been very disappointed by the council that I elected. I really thought that most of these councillors were independent thinkers and would stand up for the people and community of Rossland, but they all seem to be just following the leader. (With one exception, of course - Kathy Moore - who has had the guts to stand up for Rossland and a democratic and transparent process.) Adrian, Andrew, Andre, Kathy and Laurie all had excellent points - it was a long discussion, but well worth reading. It was also good to see Jill write in to read and respond, but disappointing, again, that no-one else on council has said anything to give us an idea of why they are acting the way they are.
Kathy Moore's Comments
I believe – I fear, actually – that the issues Kathy Moore is writing about concern far more than Rossland City Council. They extend beyond Rossland’s municipal boundaries and beyond the Province of British Columbia, these concerns affect politics in Canada overall.
We have become obsessed with “Leadership” and we treat “The Leader” as a Golden Calf.
As important as free and fair elections are to a democracy, democracy will have lost its meaning if those we elect – freely and fairly – go on to march in unison to the tune of The Leader.
The lifeblood of a democracy is compromise arising out of debate: open, frank, and passionate debate. People can only live together, peacefully and productively, if the citizens’ usually conflicting views are respected and when, through open debate, acceptable ways are found for everybody to give a little. Rodney King’s “Can we all get along” is the basis of any compromise and the essence of a democratic society.
The future looks grim for a community (or province, or nation) divided into winners and losers, insiders and outsiders. Government by singular voice is not democracy; it is how autocracies are governed.
That a councillor in a Canadian municipality should suffer the kind of bullying described by Moore is sickening! It should worry every soul living in Rossland. Some people may deem taxes to be Rossland’s biggest problem, but the issues Moore writes about point to problems far more serious than taxes.
Exactly, Andre. Thanks for
Exactly, Andre. Thanks for framing the issue so clearly.
Here's a quote from an interesting book about modern 'democracy' called The Wish For Kings by Lewis Lapham. He's talking about America, but it fits Rossland to a 't':
Democracy is about process, not outcomes. If, as a politician, you thwart the process of open discussion you thwart democracy, no matter what outcomes you may think you have in mind. A person who doesn't understand this idea has no business running for elected office.
Shame, shame, shame.
Open Government and other tidbits
Hello Rosslanders- I agree with both Laurie and Andrew. On the one hand, I believe the process we used to hire our new CAO/CFO was extremely flawed but in spite of that, I am very enthusiastic about Ms Arnott. Based on council's interview with her, I have high hopes that she can contribute to changing some of the unfortunate patterns that have developed over the last couple of years. My comments are sure to ruffle the feathers of my fellow councillors but that is not a surprise. I am going to be brutally candid here.
Anyone who thinks that interviewing just one candidate, after a less-than-comprehensive search for a position as important as CAO/CFO, is demonstrating their lack of management experience. That this contract was entered into without being reviewed by a lawyer is stunning. It was just one of several examples of this council being deftly manipulated into a corner from which they really had no options for extrication. For another example, just think back to the application for an all season pool facility. I'm not making excuses for council, we only have ourselves to blame. It was, after all, a decision of council. I sincerely regret and apologize to you for my part in it.
I agree that council conducts more of the public's business in closed meetings than it should. The attitude seems to have been that if a matter could be considered in a closed meeting it will be. Funny that Andrew mentions the broadband discussion because, I had a motion ready to move the discussion to a public session but in the end, didn't put it forward. I have taken such a beating this term, some times I just give up. BTW- the beatings were verbal: angry words and personal insults spoken at high volume and completely out of line. I did not and do not condone such behavior but by staying silent I fear I am being complicit.
I would like to start fresh with our new CAO but I think its important to note that we really need a new "council culture". In my opinion, from the start of this term there has been an increased "command and control" mentality that was less apparent last term. I hope that Ms Arnott will be able to transform our decision-making to be more collaborative and inclusive, but it's not just up to her. Let's start with the basic premise that the public's business should be done in public. Let's not beat up councillors for acting in legal and lawful ways just because it goes against the wishes of the CAO, the mayor, or council.
Councillors have a duty to consider the best interest of the municipality and the citizens. In my case, that sometimes meant that I went to outside sources (other than staff) to get information. I got blasted so hard for several of these efforts that I actually paid for legal opinions out of my own pocket just to try to convince council that I had done nothing wrong. Seriously: I got verification that a councillor can send a letter to the auditor, I got verification that I can record my own conversations with anyone and I got verification that I did not breach confidentiality by showing a city document to my lawyer before it was made public. In each of these situations I was severely criticized. Sadly, even after I presented proof that I did nothing wrong, this black sheep was still punished for not placidly grazing with the herd. Not one councillor has had the grace to admit that these baseless criticisms were out of line.
Here are five items which, in my opionion, impede council's effectiveness: (1) differences of opinion are not encouraged, (2) verifying information or advice provided by staff that doesn't make any sense is actively discouraged (Don't confuse us with facts!), (3) placing too much trust, without verification in staff opinions (4) communication between councillors and citizens is not encouraged, (5) overly strong emphasis is placed on speaking with one voice.
I agree that council decisions are to be respected but I still think citizens are entitled to more than "group-think and group-speak". You elected seven individuals to represent you. Obviously, we each bring different experiences and perspectives to the table. Communicating our views doesn't mean we don't support the majority vote, it just means we had a different opinion about the matter. That's not a crime, that's indicative of a healthy democracy in action. You have a right to know how we respond to the issues. How else will you know who to vote for next time to move the city in the direction that you would like to see it go?
I have covered a number of topics in this posting that I think the citizens should know about. It's not pretty but I am optimistic that things can change. I believe those elected to council are good people who want to do the right thing for the community. From my perspective, the pressure to simply trust without verifying compromises analytical thinking and inhibits our ability to be the most effective governing body that we have the potential to be. Hopefully we can start a new era on October 1st with our new CAO/CFO.
Time will tell...
I find it interesting that my fellow councillor has managed to vilify six people with the same brush, in one fell swoop. Some clarification and comments. Ms. Moore is not the only sheep of colour, even though she likes to think so. I have often stood contrary to the resolutions and either through debate or discussion come to vote how I do, whether for or against. Kathy has the tendency to place herself on a self-deprecating pedestal regardless of the motion on the table. That is not serving the citizens well. I find that she represents many wealthy, childless, educated, and articulate citizens. I prefer to stay in the middle of the pack and represent families, those who are less fortunate and some who are on the fringes. How often does Ms. Moore visit the Legion and the Eagles or visit the seniors and the back alleys of Rossland. Doubtful. My point is she and the Mayor are the only ones with 24/7 to spend on this job and the mayor, by virtue of the position, is always busy and on call. Kathy chooses that and I respect her, although for the rest of us we work fulltime or go to college, have kids we're still raising, family issues to deal with, many committee meetings, and myself, I represent my day job on many other committees. That is putting in a lot of time and so the playing field is not exactly even or fair. I rely on staff to report, to clarify my questions and need for further understanding in order to make informed decisions on BEHALF OF THE COMMUNITY, not a handful of wealthy citizens who have the world by the horns. Some people are just surviving and the same topics arise, dogs, infrastructure, taxes, schools, and a healthy environment and economy. Those are their priorities, a balance,
Relevance???
I fail to understand the relevance of Councillor Spearn's comments to governing the town. Everyone on council presumably puts a lot of time into reading material, attending meetings and making decisions. They all made the decision to run for council and to therefore put the time in to do a good job. A "level playing field" for time spent on council work? It's not a competition. How much money a councillor has and whether they are retired or have kids in the house really has nothing to do with their role on council. It's also good to have diversity on council. (And the Eagles and Legion patrons are very well represented, if that is a particular concern.)
I have to work to make ends meet, but just because Councillor Moore is retired doesn't mean that her analysis, questions and comments are irrelevant to me. I would also much prefer to have an "educated, articulate" councillor representing me than the alternative! Councillor Moore obviously worked hard before she retired, brought up a (very bright and balanced) son and made some very good decisions in her life to land her where she is. (One of the best decisions was moving to Rossland!!) That sounds like a good person for council if you ask me. In the same way, just because I don't frequent the Eagles, and some of the Councillors do, doesn't mean that I automatically feel that they can't represent me. As for back-alleys in Rossland - to use an overused term ... Really??? These comments make no sense to me and if anything they are a personal attack on Councillor Moore, which is extremely unprofessional. Or, it's Councillor Spearn trying to gain sympathy for being over-committed, which is also unprofessional. Please spend your time constructively.
And a comment hardly worth commenting on ... "self-deprecating pedestal" - when and where has there ever been any evidence of that?
As for Councillor Spearn's comment in the Rossland News recently about the costs of the downtown infrastructure being "complicated", I suggest that there is nothing complicated about a project and its costs if the budget and costs are being tracked. If they are complicated to Councillor Spearn, then I suggest she get the CFO or accounting staff to explain the accounting concepts to her. There should be nothing hidden in these costs to the public, unless the city hasn't been tracking and documenting the costs as the project has progressed. I would like to see these costs sooner, rather than later. What's the holdup?
Councillor Moore, a woman Spearned!
I agree with David Klein. What a sad attempt to isolate and denigrate Councillor Moore along phony class lines. The voters are too smart for this. I think the voters of Rossland, regardless of their economic status are going to be equally concerned if the $72 tax increase (on the average house value) they have planned for on the basis of City info, turns out to be more like $300 per year.
On a related note, I think all the voters will be equally concerned if the new CAO's contract turns out to be completely one sided, and full of egregious benfits and terms that aren't available to anyone else living in this area (outside of Municipal/Regional govt that is ). I gather the Telegraph is working on obtaining this document and doing this analysis.
The suspicion I have is that the rest of Council, and Councillor Spearn in particular, are secretive far beyond what is now required because there is a lot they would prefer we never find out about these areas, and Councillor Moore is obviously causing a problem in this area.
Col/Wash etc.
Hello Leigh-
There is good news and bad news. First, here is the bad: $72 per average household for 5 years is unlikely. Those numbers, communicated to the public last December did not include the full scope of the project. But here is the good news: The Ministry of Transportation is probably going to contribute more than the $1.384m of their original commitment. However, how much more isn’t known at this time. Since we are in the final, exciting stages and the time for a summer update is past, I am hopeful we'll hear the final numbers soon.
I appreciate your other comments and your posting title “a woman spearned” was very clever. As you know the full line is “Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned”. I am not as much furious as I am puzzled and disappointed. One of the basic pieces of advice we are given as incoming councillors is to “be hard on the issues but soft on the people”. As you can imagine, we are given a lot of information but clearly not all of it is retained or practiced.
And the pun of the year award
And the pun of the year award goes to...
Rossland has back alleys?
...some gravel paths, laneways, and trails perhaps, Jill, but I have to wonder what you're on about? Are you frequenting these so-called back alleys seeking Rossland's down-and-outs to ask their opinion?
And I suppose Rossland's less fortunate are telling you: "Good on you, councillor, make sure Moore doesn't get any answers about how much Columbia-Washington is going to cost the town."
And I suppose the demographic you've highlighted—uneducated, inarticulate, families of moderate means—are also opposed to Moore's other interesting and unanswered questions from the recent past, such as why the old CAO pursued a four season pool for three months without asking anyone, or why the new CAO was hired without a public job competition.
If there are other black sheep out there asking these tough questions, then let them ask, I'll be happy to report it, and the changing colour of their fleece as well.
But in the meantime, perhaps you can explain how these and similar questions only benefit the "handful of wealthy citizens who have the world by the horns"?
As Adrian mentioned in an earlier post, Coun. Moore received the highest votes of any councillor, so either there are a lot of bull-wranglin' rich folks in town, or a wide spectrum of people actually appreciate that Coun. Moore both represents their point-of-view and has time available to pursue our town's issues and ask pertinent questions, no matter how uncomfortable they may be.
Regarding those silenced voices of the Legion and the Eagles, don't you think the mayor gives these folks' opinions a fast track to council chambers?
Overall, the so-called "self-deprecating pedestal" you say Moore places herself on looks to me like a politician doing her job—politely, and respectfully, I might add, even if she must be persistent in the face of such bull-headed resistance as I've seen at council. Mind you, I'm only privy to the public meetings, and no doubt much happens behind closed doors that I can't see or comment on.
(No doubt it's worse there, as Moore's recent comments regarding verbal abuse bring to light.)
You may say, "Kathy chooses that and I respect her," but I fail to see anything like "respect" in your comment.
Cheeky devil
"Regarding those silenced voices of the Legion and the Eagles, don't you think the mayor gives these folks' opinions a fast track to council chambers?"
No, really?
What you describe sounds
What you describe sounds unconscionable and disgusting. Thanks for having the guts to break through a wall of silence here, Kathy.
The casual reader of the Telegraph may occasionally have been justified in thinking we were on a witch hunt against council, but the average person is more removed from the centre of things than a councillor or even a reporter or editor. It can be hard to see the strangeness of what's been going on for the last year or so at City Hall: the controversies, the high-handedness, the silences, the spooky, Soviet-like 'speaking with one voice', the costly mistakes, the threats and attacks against various parties, and so on. It's all gotten a little...thuggish.
Speaking for myself, it's been hard to see the abuse you've taken this time around after you were so universally-respected during your last tenure on council (I believe you received the most votes last fall, did you not?). It's especially hard because you ran out of such a clear ideal of service to a town you love.
That such an about-face has happened must speak volumes to a corrosive change in the 'order' at City Hall and all Rosslanders should give some thought to how this might have happened when they see a respected citizen like Ms. Moore forced to defend herself in this manner.
We all hope that things will now change with the arrival of the new CAO (the poor woman must be starting to wonder what she's gotten herself into). We also hope that councillors will pick up a ball or two that have been dropped and start asking a few more questions--and that the mayor will encourage such demonstrations of engagement and initiative, as is his job.
For myself, frankly I wish this was an election year. There have been enough unsavoury shenanigans on council to justify a re-think of how this city is run and who runs it.
But it's not an election year and all we can do is hope that recent changes along with discussions like this one may help to usher in some form of renewal at City Hall over the next two years.
Thanks for your service, Kathy.
comments re: council
Yes, Andrew, I actually continue to read the Telegraph, despite my comments contrary to that because I have respect for the wide variety of articles and even the editorials that I strongly disagree with. That is Democracy after all. Taking away the names of the contributors, eg Charlton I can usually tell from the comments and the tone, who has written. I find it pleasing that you are able to provide a forum for debate and 'transparency' in our community. The constant condemnation of Council and how we conduct business is unsavory. In my 7 years devoted to this community and Democracy I have learned, and continue to do so, about the details of governance and I'm proud of the way we make sure that we don't put the City, aka all of taxpayers at risk of severe liability. We use the Charter to perform our duties and interpretation is left up to the elected officials. Yes, perhaps, to you and Charlton we are not perfect, welcome to the complex world of being human. I work hard for this town and Charleton's constant lashing out is not productive and frankly, why so many resist politics in Rossland. All said, my tough skin will continue to read, for the sake of being informed and doing my volunteer job, of 7 years, even better for all Rosslanders. PS I spend countless hours reading so that comment by LC is, as usual, wrong.
Thanks for replying, Jill.
Thanks for replying, Jill. Along with Andrew Bennett, I respect the effort you and the others put into your work on council. However 'unsavoury' you find regular scrutiny of council's work, it should be noted (as Andrew states) that if legitimate questions were answered, issues like the pool, etc, would quickly go away. We're not out to beat anyone over the head with their mistakes, but we are inclined to keep asking if answers are not forthcoming. So what you call 'condemnation' is merely a series of reasonable questions (how was the pool grant handled? Why was broadband discussed in camera, etc) about democratic and bureaucratic processes. And, yes, they are our business.
Now, a series of questions without answers can sound like an attack--I see that; but consider that a series of questions interspaced with answers sounds like...a conversation!
Surely council doesn't expect journalists simply to 'shut up' if politicians don't feel like answering?
As for Mr. Charlton, I can see the annoyance there. But do you really expect us to deny a well-informed citizen his right to speak in a public forum? Some have accused us of featuring Laurie's columns to 'sell papers'. We should note, in case these critics haven't noticed, that The Telegraph is free. Indeed, if anything, we run the risk of losing advertisers by featuring controversial views. But--not to sound too noble--we'd rather go belly up than censor voices. The whole point of this publication is to facilitate a conversation in town.
Anyone want to write defending council's decisions or presenting some other alternate view? There's a slot waiting for you...let's have a real conversation.
Appropriate criticism of council
Hi Jill,
Thanks so much for your response. I sometimes feel as though councillors do not take advantage of this forum enough to state their case, and it's very helpful to read your thoughts here.
I do not understand what you mean by your sentence, "Taking away the names ..." The contributor's name is at the top of the article, as you will find mine at the top of this article. No need for analyses of content and tone!
I agree, I think the Telegraph provides an important outlet for community debate on a variety of topics. Bhubble.com is also important for similar reasons, but the Telegraph is singular in Rossland for providing balanced and accurate reports on pertinent topics and a variety of thorough opinions along with a forum for reader input and community conversation.
I am intrigued by your sense of "constant condemnation of council." Sure, Laurie does "lash out," as you say, but he's just one actor in this democracy—and our publication. Some of my editorials tend towards a strong critique of council, but not unfairly, I believe, as my criticism is almost universally directed against errors I have perceived in council's processes.
My reports are factual and plainly stated, careful to include the best representative council voice for each point of view. I challenged Coun. Kathy Wallace some time ago to find a counterexample—since she seems to be of the opinion that I spin things to suit some nefarious ulterior motive—but we never heard back.
What you see as constant condemnation, I see as "constantly asking questions that receive no answer."
I don't think these problems are unique to Rossland's council. Clearly the BC ombudsperson has found that many municipalities need to brush up on "best practices" in accountability and transparency.
For example, here are some questions that many people in Rossland would love an answer for:
Why wasn't the CAO/CFO job posted publicly? Why was only one candidate considered? Why weren't we told for two months?
Regarding the new broadband service: why wasn't the rationale for taking this debate in camera provided to the public? Why didn't we even know it was on the agenda?
These are not difficult questions, they're hardly condemnatory, and it is perfectly reasonable for Rossland residents to demand answers.
As the ombudsperson suggests, when council takes a topic behind closed doors—as they should in specific instances for valid reasons such as liability, as you mentioned—it would be in council's best public-relations interest to announce the subsection of Section 90 that requires it, and a clearly stated case as to why the topic demands it.
Finally, let me say that I appreciate your thick skin—a prerequisite for any Rossland politician, it seems, and reporters I might add—your willingness to engage in debate, and your many years of service to this community. Thank you.
Council should just answer Andrew's simple questions.
I can't believe this is becaming a name calling social dividing affair. Lets not smoke screen it by dividing Rossland into economic classes. We just want some simple questions answered that we have the right to know as tax paying Rosslanders!
JUST ANSWER THE QUESTIONS!!!!! Be open and we will be happy!!
In Conversation - the UBCM (Union of BC Municipalities)
Hello Rosslanders, just wanted to chime in after seeing some further comments since I last commented. I feel like the 'conversation' here in the Telegraph echoes some of the very important messages 'taken' away from the annual conference in Victoria. I was extremely pleased and honoured to listen to Anna Maria Tremonte, of the CBC, and world reknowned journalist, who was the keynote speaker at the conference. She had a wealth of sharing and encouraged politicians to be sure to continue the 'conversations' she so readily seeks in the difficult work she does every day, be it in Syria or in the past tryiing to interview Henry Kissinger. She had some clear messages of which I literally took notes. Firstly, she reminded us that the media, while using questions to probe and understand, always needs to be cognizant of the people factors, that every story has a heartbeat, and to be sensitive to the human factor and the personal story being sought within the context of the political story . That is what I have mentioned before, we are all human, be aware of that. Secondly, she made it clear that journalists are seeking meaningful conversation and questions are the tool to delve and more fully understand the issues and the politician's position on those issues. I agree. I will try to be more accessible if I'm not now, for Rosslanders. Thirdly, she mentioned that technology in all its forms is wonderful as these aids, again, help journalists to 'understand' and she said they have the right to hear from politicians, the right to know how we come to whatever we do in our deliberations, and that we need to engage with the media as they give' voice' to those who can't or don't do so. Agreed. I left the conference with a sense of 'in conversation' the title of the meetings, and felt the whole time I was engaged, learning, meeting with colleagues and it was really over casual conversation, that I took the most away, as usual. I do pledge to be an engaged civic representative and hope that as we move forward with a new CFO/CAO at the helm, that we will be 'in conversation' and meaningful ones, at that. MOre to come on this in the near days ahead.
PS David Klein, you are of course accurate, we do earn a stipend so I apologize for using 'volunteer'. However, do the math and you will soon see the stipend earned doesn't cover the time or negative aspects of this position. You sure sound surly, what's up???
In-camera meetings
Andrew, your comments about council's practice of inappropriately discussing issues in-camera are on the mark. Perhaps it's only coincidental that the BC Ombudsperson today released her report and best practices guide on fostering opennes, transparency and accountability in local government meetings. (http://www.bcombudsperson.ca/images/resources/reports/Special_Reports/Open_Meetings_Web.pdf) One can only hope that copies of the report will be ordered for council members and the new CAO and that they all will actually read it. (Based on council's practice of rubber-stamping whatever is put in front of them, that may be wishful thinking.) A cursory review of the report highlights many areas in which council fails to achieve even a passing grade in opennes and transparency.
Laurie Charlton
Open government
Thanks Laurie, A great link so I'm going to post it again here.
One section of the ombudsperson's report highlights how a decision to close a meeting to the public should be made. We've never seen this in Rossland, that's for sure!
The ombudsperson also writes specifically about 90 (e) and (k):
"...this authority may be exercised only if it is determined that discussion of the matter could reasonably be expected to harm either the conduct of the investigation, the enforcement of an enactment or the interests of the municipality. In Local Government under the Community Charter 4th ed., William Buholzer proposes that use of these provisions requires local governments to 'first make an express determination (by resolution) that such discussion would be harmful, and then adopt a resolution to deal with the matter in the absence of the public.' ..."