Council's 'public' question period deemed unsuitable for TV
BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN MAY 20, 2010
The nagging, gnawing thing about democracy is that, once elected, politicians are supposed to continue paying attention to the voters who put them in office.
It's a nuisance really. Citizens sometimes ask stupid or nasty questions. Sometimes, they ask pointed questions. Occasionally, they ask questions that the elected folks would prefer were left unasked.
And every once in a while, the peasants revolt. Just ask provincial Liberals what it's like to be the focus of the HST backlash.
But for the most part senior levels of government don't have to face the voters every week like municipal mayors and councillors do.
Summerland's municipal council has been particularly plagued by difficult public questions at its regular meetings, not the least of which was a barrage by Pentiction Herald managing editor James Miller in November 2009 about 2008 election financing disclosures.
His questions about an unregistered campaign organization, its support for all of the successful council candidates and more generally about campaign donations were broadcast as part of the regular council coverage by Shaw Cable and they ended up on YouTube ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY).
That led to more questions about the legitimacy of the council itself. And, eventually, some citizens lodged complaints with local RCMP.
No investigation was ever done, since in the absence of a time limit for complaints about election improprieties in the Local Government Act the RCMP had to rely on the Offence Act, which does not allow proceedings to commence more than six months after an action takes place.
(Changing that to allow more time for investigation is one of the recommendations the RCMP subsequently made to the provincial task force, which is scheduled to report back later this month about improving transparency and accountability in municipal elections.)
With a shadow continuing to hang over it, Summerland council is now considering a controversial development affecting both municipal and agricultural land that would require an amendment to the Official Community Plan, which was passed in April 2008.
Not surprisingly, citizens have lots of questions, but Summerland council has made sure that its public questioning is a little less public.
Citizens can still step up to the podium and ask what they want. Citizens can still do that, but that part of the meeting is no longer broadcast by Shaw Cable . . . at the council's request.
It was done without any public debate or disclosure and citizens only found out about it this week after a local print reporter noticed that at a recent meeting the cameras were turned off when question period began.
Convenient isn't it? Legal, too. There is no legislated requirement for municipalities to have any part of council meetings televised.
And, as Shaw told the Penticton Herald earlier this week, it is not under any obligation by the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission) to cover local councils at all.
It's surprising that Shaw was willing to accede to Summerland council's wishes.
Maybe covering the entire meeting isn't part of its mandate. But pragmatically?
Having spent far too many soporific hours covering city council meetings in several different municipalities, it's hard to imagine the broadcaster is okay with filling hours of air time with boring, moved-seconded-all-in-favour stuff and not the public question period that's almost always the liveliest, if not the most interesting part, of the meeting.
It's hard to imagine what's next.
Banning the public altogether? Or taking a page from some other municipalities' minutes and threatening citizens with legal action? Yet forced back into the public realm come election time, don't be surprised to hear the politicians wondering why there's so much voter distrust and cynicism.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
To make municipal election financing more transparent for Metro Vancouver residents, The Vancouver Sun has a searchable database of donors in the 2008 election at vancouversun.com/donors
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Council+public+question+period+deemed+unsuitable/3050753/story.html
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Council+public+question+period+deemed+unsuitable/3050753/story.html#ixzz0oX44LUWu
Thursday, May 20, 2010
Monday, May 17, 2010
"Summerland Council should not dictate television coverage policy" - Penticton Herald editorial
"Summerland Council should not dictate television coverage policy"
Penticton Herald editorial Monday, May 17, 2010
Summerland Council is again deciding what‘s the public‘s business and what‘s none of our business with its abrupt and unannounced decision to pull the public question period from broadcasts televised by Shaw Cable.
This raises some intriguing issues.
While Mayor Janice Perrino guarantees "gavel to gavel" coverage of the meeting and promises that any group may come before council with a delegation (which will be televised), her council has arbitrarily determined that open questioning can only be witnessed if the individual comes out to the meeting in person.
This is clearly a case of duck and cover.
The question period is allowed to be televised in Penticton but apparently not in Summerland. It always was. Why the abrupt change?
Perhaps it had something to do with some hard questions addressed to specific council members by this newspaper as well as members of the community.
Why can we as viewers not see what concerns the gallery may have? It‘s quite possible that a citizen may ask a perfectly valid question which nobody had ever thought of before. Voters also deserve to see how mayor, council and its staff deal with the public. How sharp are the politicians we elected when a tough question is posed?
Yes, some questions from the floor are from special interests groups and even the occasional wing-nut will get up and grandstand but they too are citizens and valued members of our community.
Officials from Shaw Cable in Calgary (the local people were not allowed to answer our questions) state that they‘re under no obligation by the CRTC to provide coverage of municipal councils and therefore they‘re happy to abide by the ground rules dictated by this council.
This is an example of chicken journalism.
In-camera meetings are obviously off-limits to press and the public for obvious reasons but Shaw should not be told by an elected board as to what they can and can not broadcast.
They‘re cheating the viewer.
The beauty of television coverage of meetings is that they‘re able to show the entire proceedings. They‘re not limited to a certain number of column inches or a 60-second sound clip like newspapers and radio are.
What will happen should CHBC show up some night and want to shoot footage of the question period? May print journalists no longer use a tape recorder?
Summerland residents should be outraged by this and must immediately begin by writing their council members and phoning the head office of Shaw Cable.
Should none of this work, bring a video camera and tape recorder to the next meeting. If there‘s something interesting, it could always be posted to Youtube.
-James M. Miller
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=265270&a=38639&d=12586&k=b0187a47844af356f15222c39e44e6ae
****
Could James Miller's (managing editor of the Penticton Herald) questions to Summerland council about election expenses during 2008 municipal electon. be the reason for this decision? To watch that November 18, 2009 interview click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY
Penticton Herald editorial Monday, May 17, 2010
Summerland Council is again deciding what‘s the public‘s business and what‘s none of our business with its abrupt and unannounced decision to pull the public question period from broadcasts televised by Shaw Cable.
This raises some intriguing issues.
While Mayor Janice Perrino guarantees "gavel to gavel" coverage of the meeting and promises that any group may come before council with a delegation (which will be televised), her council has arbitrarily determined that open questioning can only be witnessed if the individual comes out to the meeting in person.
This is clearly a case of duck and cover.
The question period is allowed to be televised in Penticton but apparently not in Summerland. It always was. Why the abrupt change?
Perhaps it had something to do with some hard questions addressed to specific council members by this newspaper as well as members of the community.
Why can we as viewers not see what concerns the gallery may have? It‘s quite possible that a citizen may ask a perfectly valid question which nobody had ever thought of before. Voters also deserve to see how mayor, council and its staff deal with the public. How sharp are the politicians we elected when a tough question is posed?
Yes, some questions from the floor are from special interests groups and even the occasional wing-nut will get up and grandstand but they too are citizens and valued members of our community.
Officials from Shaw Cable in Calgary (the local people were not allowed to answer our questions) state that they‘re under no obligation by the CRTC to provide coverage of municipal councils and therefore they‘re happy to abide by the ground rules dictated by this council.
This is an example of chicken journalism.
In-camera meetings are obviously off-limits to press and the public for obvious reasons but Shaw should not be told by an elected board as to what they can and can not broadcast.
They‘re cheating the viewer.
The beauty of television coverage of meetings is that they‘re able to show the entire proceedings. They‘re not limited to a certain number of column inches or a 60-second sound clip like newspapers and radio are.
What will happen should CHBC show up some night and want to shoot footage of the question period? May print journalists no longer use a tape recorder?
Summerland residents should be outraged by this and must immediately begin by writing their council members and phoning the head office of Shaw Cable.
Should none of this work, bring a video camera and tape recorder to the next meeting. If there‘s something interesting, it could always be posted to Youtube.
-James M. Miller
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=265270&a=38639&d=12586&k=b0187a47844af356f15222c39e44e6ae
****
Could James Miller's (managing editor of the Penticton Herald) questions to Summerland council about election expenses during 2008 municipal electon. be the reason for this decision? To watch that November 18, 2009 interview click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hVP349ZoNXY
Wednesday, May 12, 2010
"Foreign influence in our local elections is troubling" - Daphne Bramham - The Vancouver Sun May 12, 2010
Money doesn’t talk. But give it to politicians and it can buy access, influence and even a favourable vote or two.
That’s why citizens need to know who is giving, who is receiving and what amounts are changing hands. Transparency is largely lacking in the B. C. municipal elections, since no disclosure is required until four months after voting day. There are also no restrictions on either donations or expenditures. And, far from requiring that donors live or work in the community, there’s not even a requirement that they be Canadian.
While it seems improved transparency and enforcement are finally on the agenda, it’s astonishing that parochial politicians ( and I mean that in a good way) and concerned citizens are not demanding a ban on foreign donations at the level of government that is supposed to be the closest to the people.
There is nothing xenophobic in telling rich people, organizations and corporations with no ties to a community, to take a hike at election time. In fact, not doing so seems naive. Do we really believe that the rich are only donating to campaigns to support the democratic process?
At the federal level, there are spending and contribution limits as well as a prohibition on foreign donors. Yet B. C. lags at both the provincial and municipal levels. Perhaps the perception is that the benefits to a donor are such chicken scratch at the local level that it’s not worth the effort of regulating.
But the reality is that buying a city council is extremely costeffective, whether it’s a corporation wanting to build a polluting plant, a greedy developer with plans for a highrise tower in a single-family neighbourhood, a religious organization bent on overturning values held by the majority, a union determined to preserve jobs during the economic downturn or an individual bent on altering the status quo.
Voter turnout hovers at 30 per cent. So, the difference between winning and losing can mean swaying just a few hundred people in a city such as Vancouver, or a few dozen people in smaller centres. Not only does it not take much money to buy a campaign, a candidate or a council majority, no one will know until it’s too late.
Mark Ziebarth is a good example of how loopholes can be exploited. An American who did work with the Heritage Foundation ( a right-wing group that has produced such controversial figures as Ann Coulter), he now lives in Summerland.
During the 2008 campaign, Ziebarth wrote and paid for four ads in The Summerland Review and one in The Penticton Herald supporting pro-development and eventually successful candidates for mayor and council.
“ In order to have some fun at the expense of the antediluvian Smart Growth crowd, I named myself Citizens for Smart Governance and published my ads under that banner,” Ziebarth bragged in a letter to The Review last December.
He also broke the law by never registering as a campaign organization or filing a financial disclosure statement.
Ziebarth wasn’t charged because complaints about his action weren’t filed with police within a six-month period following the election.
Maybe no harm was done. But would anyone be comfortable had the secret financier been from Saudi Arabia with links to militant Islam, or a cult leader searching for a convivial community? What if the backer were a Chinese military leader or a state-owned company trying to influence the vote in resourcerich Interior and northern communities?
It’s hard to say whether it would have made a difference to voters had they known that Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson had a handful of highprofile foreign contributors including Oprah’s pal, Dr. Andrew Weil.
But since then, Robertson and all of Vancouver’s councillors ( including Raymond Louie, who received $ 8,000 from a Taiwanese businessman toward his failed mayoral bid) have recommended to the province’s municipal electoral task force that foreign donations be banned.
It appears that they, too, have belatedly realized that the perception — if not the reality — of foreign influence in elections is troubling, to say the least.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Foreign+influence+local+elections+troubling/3016439/story.html
That’s why citizens need to know who is giving, who is receiving and what amounts are changing hands. Transparency is largely lacking in the B. C. municipal elections, since no disclosure is required until four months after voting day. There are also no restrictions on either donations or expenditures. And, far from requiring that donors live or work in the community, there’s not even a requirement that they be Canadian.
While it seems improved transparency and enforcement are finally on the agenda, it’s astonishing that parochial politicians ( and I mean that in a good way) and concerned citizens are not demanding a ban on foreign donations at the level of government that is supposed to be the closest to the people.
There is nothing xenophobic in telling rich people, organizations and corporations with no ties to a community, to take a hike at election time. In fact, not doing so seems naive. Do we really believe that the rich are only donating to campaigns to support the democratic process?
At the federal level, there are spending and contribution limits as well as a prohibition on foreign donors. Yet B. C. lags at both the provincial and municipal levels. Perhaps the perception is that the benefits to a donor are such chicken scratch at the local level that it’s not worth the effort of regulating.
But the reality is that buying a city council is extremely costeffective, whether it’s a corporation wanting to build a polluting plant, a greedy developer with plans for a highrise tower in a single-family neighbourhood, a religious organization bent on overturning values held by the majority, a union determined to preserve jobs during the economic downturn or an individual bent on altering the status quo.
Voter turnout hovers at 30 per cent. So, the difference between winning and losing can mean swaying just a few hundred people in a city such as Vancouver, or a few dozen people in smaller centres. Not only does it not take much money to buy a campaign, a candidate or a council majority, no one will know until it’s too late.
Mark Ziebarth is a good example of how loopholes can be exploited. An American who did work with the Heritage Foundation ( a right-wing group that has produced such controversial figures as Ann Coulter), he now lives in Summerland.
During the 2008 campaign, Ziebarth wrote and paid for four ads in The Summerland Review and one in The Penticton Herald supporting pro-development and eventually successful candidates for mayor and council.
“ In order to have some fun at the expense of the antediluvian Smart Growth crowd, I named myself Citizens for Smart Governance and published my ads under that banner,” Ziebarth bragged in a letter to The Review last December.
He also broke the law by never registering as a campaign organization or filing a financial disclosure statement.
Ziebarth wasn’t charged because complaints about his action weren’t filed with police within a six-month period following the election.
Maybe no harm was done. But would anyone be comfortable had the secret financier been from Saudi Arabia with links to militant Islam, or a cult leader searching for a convivial community? What if the backer were a Chinese military leader or a state-owned company trying to influence the vote in resourcerich Interior and northern communities?
It’s hard to say whether it would have made a difference to voters had they known that Vancouver Mayor Gregor Robertson had a handful of highprofile foreign contributors including Oprah’s pal, Dr. Andrew Weil.
But since then, Robertson and all of Vancouver’s councillors ( including Raymond Louie, who received $ 8,000 from a Taiwanese businessman toward his failed mayoral bid) have recommended to the province’s municipal electoral task force that foreign donations be banned.
It appears that they, too, have belatedly realized that the perception — if not the reality — of foreign influence in elections is troubling, to say the least.
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Foreign+influence+local+elections+troubling/3016439/story.html
Saturday, May 1, 2010
"Getting past 'not in the public interest to proceed' - Vancouver Sun April 30, 2010
Getting past 'not in the public interest to proceed'
Local Government Act concerning illegal campaign contributions to candidates is flawed
BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 30, 2010
Civic election campaigns are awash in money even in small communities
and municipalities where candidates have no real challengers. As interesting as that is, what's as intriguing is the money that is never accounted for; money spent by individuals and groups who endorsed and promoted various candidates across the province and broke the law by failing to register or file the necessary financial disclosures.
They've been allowed to get away with it because the Local Government Act is deeply flawed, even with the amendments made less than seven months before the 2008 election requiring third-party registration and disclosure.
Chief among the act's flaws is that it has penalties, but no enforcement provisions.
Chief electoral officers have no investigative powers and, even if they did, they would likely be perceived to be in a conflict of interest because, almost invariably, they are municipal employees.
Citizens can file private prosecutions, but that puts the onus of investigation and court costs on their shoulders.
Police can investigate after citizen complaints. But there are -- to put it mildly -- investigative challenges.
Police did conduct investigations in West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley, Summerland and Gibsons following the 2008 election.
In West Vancouver, a group called Low Tax, Low Growth Association sent out glossy brochures endorsing a slate of candidates. It neither registered as a campaign organizer nor filed a financial disclosure even though it spent thousands of dollars.
Although West Van police recommended charges, Crown counsel said there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest to proceed.
In Central Saanich, several groups that endorsed candidates failed to register; among them was the Peninsula Co-op, which had the local chief of police on its board. RCMP were called in and spent more than 600 hours investigating. They recommended charges against 19 individuals, but again Crown counsel said there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest to proceed.
In Langley, the names of two provincial cabinet ministers appeared in newspaper ads endorsing a slate. No charges were recommended; RCMP didn't know what value to place on the endorsement.
Nor did the RCMP make any recommendation to charge an individual, on the grounds the person didn't know about the act and complied after being told. So much for the ignorance-is-no-defence theory.
In Summerland, Citizens for Smart Governance ran five ads endorsing all of the successful candidates, including the mayor. Only after intense media interest did local businessman Mark Ziebarth come forward and claim that he was the only person in the group. He also insisted to CBC Radio that during next election not only will he again refuse to register, he'll spend more money.
No charges were recommended there or in Gibsons, where the citizens complained of conflicts of interest. It's not because there may not have been cause for charges in both communities, but because the time limit to charge anyone had expired.
The Local Government Act sets no time frame within which charges can be laid. As a result, police have no choice but to use the Offence Act, which says no action can be taken more than six months after an offence has taken place.
This is ridiculous in the case of municipal election complaints.
Candidates, campaign organizers and election organizations don't even have to file their financial disclosures until 120 days after the election. That leaves a scant two months for citizens or police to investigate.
And while the complaints from the last election focused on failures to register and disclose, there are far more serious offences in the act including vote-buying and intimidation that may be more complicated to investigate.
As a result of myriad concerns about the act and spurred by the media attention given to the shadowy groups and the subsequent investigations, Premier Gordon Campbell finally appointed a Local Government Elections Task Force to review the civic election rules last December.
The panel has received hundreds of submissions from groups and individuals, although names are redacted on the individual submissions because of privacy concerns.
In its submission, the RCMP lays out the multitude of problems with the act. Among the investigative challenges, it says there is not enough time
to investigate, investigations require specialized skills and local police (including RCMP working as municipal police) have either real or perceived conflicts of interest.
As a result of its experience with "at least five complaints" following the 2008 vote, RCMP recommend five changes:
. Empower Elections BC, or establish another body, to receive and review all complaints to ensure only the most serious are referred to police.
. Add a limitation-of-action section to the Local Government Act of at least one year from the date of the alleged offence to bringing the complaint to the attention of the appropriate authority.
. Expand the number of offences for which automatic penalties apply.
. Address the actual or perceived conflict of interest arising from local police investigating their political overseers.
. Ensure that officers have the necessary skills to investigate election-related complaints, which may require training a pool of officers -- both RCMP and local police -- familiar with the act who could act as primary investigators.
All of those recommendations make sense and would help restore some confidence in the electoral system. But they are only part of the reform that's needed.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Getting+past+public+interest+proceed/2969994/story.html
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Getting+past+public+interest+proceed/2969994/story.html#ixzz0mgz8z3D1
Local Government Act concerning illegal campaign contributions to candidates is flawed
BY DAPHNE BRAMHAM, VANCOUVER SUN APRIL 30, 2010
Civic election campaigns are awash in money even in small communities
and municipalities where candidates have no real challengers. As interesting as that is, what's as intriguing is the money that is never accounted for; money spent by individuals and groups who endorsed and promoted various candidates across the province and broke the law by failing to register or file the necessary financial disclosures.
They've been allowed to get away with it because the Local Government Act is deeply flawed, even with the amendments made less than seven months before the 2008 election requiring third-party registration and disclosure.
Chief among the act's flaws is that it has penalties, but no enforcement provisions.
Chief electoral officers have no investigative powers and, even if they did, they would likely be perceived to be in a conflict of interest because, almost invariably, they are municipal employees.
Citizens can file private prosecutions, but that puts the onus of investigation and court costs on their shoulders.
Police can investigate after citizen complaints. But there are -- to put it mildly -- investigative challenges.
Police did conduct investigations in West Vancouver, Central Saanich, Langley, Summerland and Gibsons following the 2008 election.
In West Vancouver, a group called Low Tax, Low Growth Association sent out glossy brochures endorsing a slate of candidates. It neither registered as a campaign organizer nor filed a financial disclosure even though it spent thousands of dollars.
Although West Van police recommended charges, Crown counsel said there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest to proceed.
In Central Saanich, several groups that endorsed candidates failed to register; among them was the Peninsula Co-op, which had the local chief of police on its board. RCMP were called in and spent more than 600 hours investigating. They recommended charges against 19 individuals, but again Crown counsel said there was no reasonable likelihood of conviction and it was not in the public interest to proceed.
In Langley, the names of two provincial cabinet ministers appeared in newspaper ads endorsing a slate. No charges were recommended; RCMP didn't know what value to place on the endorsement.
Nor did the RCMP make any recommendation to charge an individual, on the grounds the person didn't know about the act and complied after being told. So much for the ignorance-is-no-defence theory.
In Summerland, Citizens for Smart Governance ran five ads endorsing all of the successful candidates, including the mayor. Only after intense media interest did local businessman Mark Ziebarth come forward and claim that he was the only person in the group. He also insisted to CBC Radio that during next election not only will he again refuse to register, he'll spend more money.
No charges were recommended there or in Gibsons, where the citizens complained of conflicts of interest. It's not because there may not have been cause for charges in both communities, but because the time limit to charge anyone had expired.
The Local Government Act sets no time frame within which charges can be laid. As a result, police have no choice but to use the Offence Act, which says no action can be taken more than six months after an offence has taken place.
This is ridiculous in the case of municipal election complaints.
Candidates, campaign organizers and election organizations don't even have to file their financial disclosures until 120 days after the election. That leaves a scant two months for citizens or police to investigate.
And while the complaints from the last election focused on failures to register and disclose, there are far more serious offences in the act including vote-buying and intimidation that may be more complicated to investigate.
As a result of myriad concerns about the act and spurred by the media attention given to the shadowy groups and the subsequent investigations, Premier Gordon Campbell finally appointed a Local Government Elections Task Force to review the civic election rules last December.
The panel has received hundreds of submissions from groups and individuals, although names are redacted on the individual submissions because of privacy concerns.
In its submission, the RCMP lays out the multitude of problems with the act. Among the investigative challenges, it says there is not enough time
to investigate, investigations require specialized skills and local police (including RCMP working as municipal police) have either real or perceived conflicts of interest.
As a result of its experience with "at least five complaints" following the 2008 vote, RCMP recommend five changes:
. Empower Elections BC, or establish another body, to receive and review all complaints to ensure only the most serious are referred to police.
. Add a limitation-of-action section to the Local Government Act of at least one year from the date of the alleged offence to bringing the complaint to the attention of the appropriate authority.
. Expand the number of offences for which automatic penalties apply.
. Address the actual or perceived conflict of interest arising from local police investigating their political overseers.
. Ensure that officers have the necessary skills to investigate election-related complaints, which may require training a pool of officers -- both RCMP and local police -- familiar with the act who could act as primary investigators.
All of those recommendations make sense and would help restore some confidence in the electoral system. But they are only part of the reform that's needed.
dbramham@vancouversun.com
© Copyright (c) The Vancouver Sun
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Getting+past+public+interest+proceed/2969994/story.html
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Getting+past+public+interest+proceed/2969994/story.html#ixzz0mgz8z3D1
Sunday, April 4, 2010
"Now‘s the time to speak your mind" - guest column Penticton Herald April 3, 2010
Now‘s the time to speak your mind
By Bill Bennett
Minister of Community and Rural Development
Saturday, April 3, 2010
VICTORIA - If you‘ve ever wanted to have a say in the way your local government representatives and school trustees are elected, this is your chance to speak your mind.
There are still a few weeks left for citizens, organizations and community groups to submit written feedback to the joint Local Government Elections Task Force.
I‘ve had the privilege these last few months, to work with an incredible group of people representing both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the province on the task force, including co-chair and UBCM president Harry Nyce.
We‘ve been collecting feedback from individuals and organizations from all over B.C. about how to improve our current local government elections process and have received more than 250 submissions to date.
Though a lot of positive changes have been made in recent years to the Local Government Act to modernize elections, the task force has been looking at any remaining gaps in the process.
The issues we‘ve been examining include campaign finance, enforcement processes and outcomes, the role of B.C.‘s chief electoral officer in local government elections, the term of office, the corporate vote, and candidate eligibility of some local government employees.
We know how important it is to seek opinions from a diverse range of stakeholders, and we have invited input from local governments, citizens, community groups, the Leader of the Opposition and organizations such as the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Federation of Labour, B.C. School Trustees Association and B.C. Teachers Federation.
We are also getting technical advice from election experts, including the Local Government Management Association, Elections B.C. and academics.
As well, individual task-force members are receiving feedback throughout the normal course of their work in communities throughout B.C.
From the outset, the task force has made a concerted effort to be as transparent as possible.
That‘s why we took the unusual step of posting on our website discussion papers about the topics the task force is reviewing.
We wanted the public to be part of this process, to think through these complex issues with us.
We decided initially to keep the submissions confidential
so people could feel free to
express themselves without fear of having their comments made public.
However, as a result of constructive criticism about our process, we have reconsidered that decision.
We are posting submissions by local governments and organizations in their entirety to our website.
To protect people‘s privacy, we are posting only the substantive comments of individuals, without identifying them.
In order to hear from as many people as possible, we have asked for comments to be submitted in writing.
I encourage you again to check out our website and let us know what you think. The deadline is April 15.
Comments can be provided:
Online at localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.c
By e-mail to localelectionstaskforce@gov.bc.ca
By fax to 250 387-7972
By mail to:
Local Government Elections Task Force
c/o Ministry of Community and Rural Development
PO Box 9839 Stn Prov Govt.
Victoria B.C. V8W 9T1
Any changes that come out of the review will be made in time for approved legislative changes to be implemented for the 2011 local government elections.
For more information on government services or to subscribe to the province‘s news feeds using RSS, visit the province‘s website at gov.bc.ca.
Bill Bennett is the Minister of Community and Rural Development.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=254832&a=53591&d=12619&k=5d3d5f59fc74b8a17af3e6f09071f76d
By Bill Bennett
Minister of Community and Rural Development
Saturday, April 3, 2010
VICTORIA - If you‘ve ever wanted to have a say in the way your local government representatives and school trustees are elected, this is your chance to speak your mind.
There are still a few weeks left for citizens, organizations and community groups to submit written feedback to the joint Local Government Elections Task Force.
I‘ve had the privilege these last few months, to work with an incredible group of people representing both the Union of British Columbia Municipalities and the province on the task force, including co-chair and UBCM president Harry Nyce.
We‘ve been collecting feedback from individuals and organizations from all over B.C. about how to improve our current local government elections process and have received more than 250 submissions to date.
Though a lot of positive changes have been made in recent years to the Local Government Act to modernize elections, the task force has been looking at any remaining gaps in the process.
The issues we‘ve been examining include campaign finance, enforcement processes and outcomes, the role of B.C.‘s chief electoral officer in local government elections, the term of office, the corporate vote, and candidate eligibility of some local government employees.
We know how important it is to seek opinions from a diverse range of stakeholders, and we have invited input from local governments, citizens, community groups, the Leader of the Opposition and organizations such as the B.C. Chamber of Commerce, the B.C. Federation of Labour, B.C. School Trustees Association and B.C. Teachers Federation.
We are also getting technical advice from election experts, including the Local Government Management Association, Elections B.C. and academics.
As well, individual task-force members are receiving feedback throughout the normal course of their work in communities throughout B.C.
From the outset, the task force has made a concerted effort to be as transparent as possible.
That‘s why we took the unusual step of posting on our website discussion papers about the topics the task force is reviewing.
We wanted the public to be part of this process, to think through these complex issues with us.
We decided initially to keep the submissions confidential
so people could feel free to
express themselves without fear of having their comments made public.
However, as a result of constructive criticism about our process, we have reconsidered that decision.
We are posting submissions by local governments and organizations in their entirety to our website.
To protect people‘s privacy, we are posting only the substantive comments of individuals, without identifying them.
In order to hear from as many people as possible, we have asked for comments to be submitted in writing.
I encourage you again to check out our website and let us know what you think. The deadline is April 15.
Comments can be provided:
Online at localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.c
By e-mail to localelectionstaskforce@gov.bc.ca
By fax to 250 387-7972
By mail to:
Local Government Elections Task Force
c/o Ministry of Community and Rural Development
PO Box 9839 Stn Prov Govt.
Victoria B.C. V8W 9T1
Any changes that come out of the review will be made in time for approved legislative changes to be implemented for the 2011 local government elections.
For more information on government services or to subscribe to the province‘s news feeds using RSS, visit the province‘s website at gov.bc.ca.
Bill Bennett is the Minister of Community and Rural Development.
http://www.pentictonherald.ca/stories.php?i=254832&a=53591&d=12619&k=5d3d5f59fc74b8a17af3e6f09071f76d
Thursday, February 25, 2010
NDP urges Liberals to be non-partisan in selecting civic election committee - article -Vancouver Sun
NDP urges Liberals to be non-partisan in selecting civic election committee
Darah Hansen, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, November 28, 2009
B.C.'s New Democrats appealed to the government Friday to put aside partisan interests and include opposition members in a yet-to-be-announced committee examining gaping holes in municipal-election legislation.
Any such committee "should be squeaky clean ... Even the appearance of [possible] political motives should not be there," said Scott Fraser, NDP MLA for Port Alberni and community development critic.
Fraser's comments came after hints leaked earlier this week that the Liberals were set to appoint members of the committee. They will investigate possible changes to the Local Government Act after municipalities across the province raised concerns at the Union of B.C. Municipalities this fall about serious flaws in the legislation.
"It is a bit of the Wild West out there compared to provincial and federal elections," Community Development Minister Bill Bennett said at the time.
A Vancouver Sun article published Friday highlighted one particularly murky situation brewing in the grape-growing paradise of Summerland following last year's municipal election.
All six town councillors and Mayor Janice Perino admitted in their campaign-financing disclosure statements that they took donations from unnamed individuals, groups or corporations that exceeded the legal threshold set out under the Local Government Act.
According to the act, it's illegal to take anonymous donations of more than $50, and the penalty for doing so is disqualification from holding office and from running again until after the next general election.
It's also illegal to give anonymous donations of more than $50.
To date, no one on council has been fired. Summerland's acting Mayor Gordon Clark said that's because no one has done anything wrong.
"I try to behave in complete compliance with the spirit and the letter of the legislation," the retired lawyer said in an interview.
But others, including Kennedy Stewart, a Simon Fraser University political scientist whose specialty is civic politics, believe the lack of action has more to with the toothless nature of the act, which fails to set out clear powers of enforcement.
In a speech to municipal leaders in the fall, Premier Gordon Campbell said he would put a committee in place to look into the problems. The committee is to be headed by Union of B.C. Municipalities president Harry Nyce and Bennett, with recommendations expected by May 31.
Fraser said he was still hopeful Friday the committee would also include members of the NDP, as well as B.C.'s lone independent MLA Vicki Huntington.
dahansen@vancouversun.com
© Vancouver Sun 2009
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=65171acd-240a-4306-8db2-03f34dc88915
Darah Hansen, Vancouver Sun
Published: Saturday, November 28, 2009
B.C.'s New Democrats appealed to the government Friday to put aside partisan interests and include opposition members in a yet-to-be-announced committee examining gaping holes in municipal-election legislation.
Any such committee "should be squeaky clean ... Even the appearance of [possible] political motives should not be there," said Scott Fraser, NDP MLA for Port Alberni and community development critic.
Fraser's comments came after hints leaked earlier this week that the Liberals were set to appoint members of the committee. They will investigate possible changes to the Local Government Act after municipalities across the province raised concerns at the Union of B.C. Municipalities this fall about serious flaws in the legislation.
"It is a bit of the Wild West out there compared to provincial and federal elections," Community Development Minister Bill Bennett said at the time.
A Vancouver Sun article published Friday highlighted one particularly murky situation brewing in the grape-growing paradise of Summerland following last year's municipal election.
All six town councillors and Mayor Janice Perino admitted in their campaign-financing disclosure statements that they took donations from unnamed individuals, groups or corporations that exceeded the legal threshold set out under the Local Government Act.
According to the act, it's illegal to take anonymous donations of more than $50, and the penalty for doing so is disqualification from holding office and from running again until after the next general election.
It's also illegal to give anonymous donations of more than $50.
To date, no one on council has been fired. Summerland's acting Mayor Gordon Clark said that's because no one has done anything wrong.
"I try to behave in complete compliance with the spirit and the letter of the legislation," the retired lawyer said in an interview.
But others, including Kennedy Stewart, a Simon Fraser University political scientist whose specialty is civic politics, believe the lack of action has more to with the toothless nature of the act, which fails to set out clear powers of enforcement.
In a speech to municipal leaders in the fall, Premier Gordon Campbell said he would put a committee in place to look into the problems. The committee is to be headed by Union of B.C. Municipalities president Harry Nyce and Bennett, with recommendations expected by May 31.
Fraser said he was still hopeful Friday the committee would also include members of the NDP, as well as B.C.'s lone independent MLA Vicki Huntington.
dahansen@vancouversun.com
© Vancouver Sun 2009
http://www2.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=65171acd-240a-4306-8db2-03f34dc88915
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Task Force on changes to municipal elections
On October 2, 2009, Premier Gordon Campbell announced a joint Task Force to make recommendations for legislative changes to improve the electoral process for local government elections across B.C.
The six-member Task Force is co-chaired by Bill Bennett, Minister of Community and Rural Development, and Harry Nyce, president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and includes two other UBCM executive members and two provincial MLAs.
The Task Force is reviewing specific issues related to local government elections. Topics under review are:
Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
Enforcement processes and outcomes
Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
Election cycle (term of office)
Corporate vote
Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)
The Task Force welcomes feedback in writing on these topics. Written comments can be submitted via the e-mail Feedback link, the Feedback Form or sent to:
E-mail
localelectionstaskforce@gov.bc.ca
Mail
Local Government Elections Task Force
c/o Ministry of Community and Rural Development
PO Box 9839 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9T1
Fax: 250-387-7972
The Task Force looks forward to receiving your written comments as soon as possible, preferably by April 15, 2010.
http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/index.html
The six-member Task Force is co-chaired by Bill Bennett, Minister of Community and Rural Development, and Harry Nyce, president of the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) and includes two other UBCM executive members and two provincial MLAs.
The Task Force is reviewing specific issues related to local government elections. Topics under review are:
Campaign finance, including contribution/spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
Enforcement processes and outcomes
Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
Election cycle (term of office)
Corporate vote
Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)
The Task Force welcomes feedback in writing on these topics. Written comments can be submitted via the e-mail Feedback link, the Feedback Form or sent to:
localelectionstaskforce@gov.bc.ca
Local Government Elections Task Force
c/o Ministry of Community and Rural Development
PO Box 9839 Stn Prov Govt
Victoria BC V8W 9T1
Fax: 250-387-7972
The Task Force looks forward to receiving your written comments as soon as possible, preferably by April 15, 2010.
http://www.localelectionstaskforce.gov.bc.ca/index.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)