The difference is strictly politician math….900 signatures right before an election holds WAY MORE weight than 5000 shortly after he has been re-elected.

“….even if the Alternate Approval process comes in one vote short to stop the borrowing,…”

Scary stuff! This shows the importance of all people getting involved and casting their vote when the opportunity arises. It also shows that it may be a better idea to appoint an independent agent to receive all votes (paper or email), safeguard them and count them under legal supervision.

Interesting read Ben.

We talked this week and you asked me to come on your show to ‘discuss’ the dike issue and I said I was more than willing to. I’m still waiting for your phone call to book that date.

As for the “one vote short” comment, it was part of an answer as to the how the APP process works and what the next steps are. I would be happy to share those steps with your listeners any time next week but Tuesday.

Not un-expected from a guy who sells comic books, and dreams of going to Ottawa as an MP. The world over, Politicians treat taxpayers the same; “give me your $$, we know what is best for you”.

“The comments by Councillor Cameron Stolz that even if the reverse petition is short one signature, the borrowing goes ahead for the River Road dike, displays a great deal of arrogance on the issue.”

No it doesn’t, no matter how much you want to paint it that way.

It shows adherence to the rules of the process. What if the AAP is 50 signatures short? 100? Where do you draw the line?

So, because the petition is 1 vote short, and lets remember there are going to be some disallowed for dubious reasons I am sure, that isn’t enough of a message from the taxpayers we want this to go to a referendum? The mayor and council are supposed to be there FOR us, not in spite of us, so 1 or 10 short still shows a clear message. That is how it should work, and not be decided by 1 or 10 votes. It may be adhereing to the rules, but lets have some common sense as well. It does show arrogance to say something like that, because it clearly shows stolz doesn’t care what the taxpayers want, clearly that is his message.

when and where is the meeting regarding getting people on board? was to be today
please post. thank you

Tonight (April 12) at 7pm in the McGregor room at the Coast Inn of the North

All right ‘But’, it appears you’ve accepted my challenge. What if the AAP is 2 sigs short? Is that enough to hold the referendum anyway? How many signatures would you allow the AAP to be short before you said “it’s not enough”.

Common sense indeed.

The rules are the rules. They’re there for a reason.

And I say this not being a big Cameron Stolz supporter and I will be signing the petition.

Let’s not cloud the issue with emotional arguments and judgments about ‘what if’ the AAP is one signature short.

“so 1 or 10 short still shows a clear message.”
So Im guessing the magic number is 11

Of course this raises an important issue in my mind as suggested by “PrinceGeorge” and raised by Councillor Stolz with his one vote short comment.

We know that during elections there are recounts in the cases where the votes are that close. We also know that during elections there are scrutineers from interested parties who oversee the vote counting as well as the voting process.
While I appreciate the moves the City has made to make this process much more accessible than it has been in the past, having three accesses to the “petition” – e-mail, fax, direct delivery – makes it vulnerable to considerably more error than the notion of each individual putting a ballot into a ballot box or scanner.

So, what safeguards are there in place to ensure the integrity of the system and how will the citizens of this city be ensured that it is properly handled? Is an independent body overseeing the process?

A properly audited process goes a long way to solidify trust, accountability and transparency.

I would hope Stolz would resign from council when there are sufficient votes to force a referendum.
I wonder if council will cancel the dike if there are sufficient people signing the AAP in order to save the $60,000.00 grand the referendum costs. Seems only fair.
It is unbelievable the arrogance of some of the city councillors.
After driving 2200 miles from the southern US without exception Price George takes the prize as the grubbiest, unkept, pot hole filled city in North America.

1 or 10 was an example obviously. The point being there has to be common sense somewhere when it shows that many people against this borrowing. This should be a process to gauge the citizens wishes to a direction, not a mathematical tabulation that can be a yes or no based on 1 vote. It should even be based on 10 votes, but rather a concensus on what is a clear message from the taxpayers. I would suggest anything over 50% of the votes it took to elect the mayor would be a good number.

It should even be based on 10 votes = It should NOT even be based on 10 votes

The way the AAP works is that the City determines the number of elegible voters from Elections BC. They then take 10% of that number. Which in this case would be 5,351 signatures required.

So you can see that the number of votes required would depend on the number of registered voters at Elections BC when the request was made. During the last AAP for 18th Avenue Admin Building which took place in July 2011 the signatures required were 5,307. The RCMP Building in 2010 required 5,217 signatures.

So the number required varies. The 5,351 would (or should) be a ball park figure at best, and if the signatures for a referendum were anywhere close to this amount, then it should be considered sufficient.

On the other hand the decision would be made by the Mayor and Council, as opposed to Councillor Stoltz. If it went to a vote by Council then of course Stoltz has one vote.

The person responsible for the safekeeping of the petitions and the count is Walter Babicz, Manager of Legislative Services, who when the process is over on April 24th 5pm has to do the count, and make a report to Council. There does not seem to be any system in place (such as scrutineers) to ensure that there is due diligence in regards to rejecting petitions etc;, however I have no reason to beleive that the process would be less than honest.

I suggest that we get many many signatures in excess of 5,351 as we can, so that we have sufficient petitions signed to ensure that we pass the magic line with plenty to spare.

Attend the meeting at the Inn of the North to-night, and help plan a strategy to ensure that we get ***One for the Gipper**

Hopefully the “Prince George Referendum Collective” – those who want to see these things go to referendum – think about leveraging technology.

What the group needs is a database of like-minded folk who can be called upon – and visited with form to sign -whenever an AAP is put in motion. Ideally a secure web-based database that can be shared and e-mailed for people to sign up for. And data that can be organized by geography so organizers can visit and efficiently collect signatures.

If the group can assure they won’t support the initiative either way, but just rally to have issues put to referendum, I think there would be a good deal of support. The Collective would have to be apolitical in all things except for forcing referendums on every AAP issue.

I believe there are people who support the dyke but don’t support the process – they should sign up, too. It’s about fairness.

AAP needs to be squashed asap.. its a joke. Kind of like our “mayor” and “council”

“What the group needs is a database”

The RCMP just got one to fight crime …. maybe we can use theirs since fighting AAPs is almost like fighting crime … even though it it a crime made legitimate by the province …. I guess it isn’t a crime anymore thne … ;-)

I do not recall having a say in borrowing in past decades. Is this something new in recent years?

“…however I have no reason to beleive that the process would be less than honest.”

Believing and Knowing are to different things. I too have no reason to believe that this process would not be honest, but in order to have knowledge backed by indisputable evidence it would have to be properly certified.