I thought Sherri Green was all about downtown revitalization? I don’t see how this vote for increased drinking seats at the casino fits with that ‘vision’. Obviously her vote is for sale to the highest bidder?

IMO it bears no resemblance to democracy to have corporations funding our policy.

Shari,not going on the Meisner show says to me you really are not facing the people of pg, if you believe in what you say you would go and stand up for it, but i guess it is easierto let your pr people do your dirty work,

Of coarse Mayor Green did not see her vote as a conflict; she only sees what she wants to see. This is not a situation where someone donated twenty or a hundred dollars to her election campaign, we are talking, as mentioned above 16.5 per cent (to help get her a job that pays around a $100,000 per year.) That is almost one fifth of her campaign money. Obviously she is a debtor to the interests of a Casino that now potentially could clean out all the pubs in town on a regular week day!

I would like to know if Brian Skakun and Murray Krause will recuse themselves in any matters pertaining to the union. Like say Contract negotiations or voting on the final package. Both of these councillors received considerable support from CUPE.

You see it cuts both ways.

Green voted no on northern electric the other night, they were campaign contributors. But this web site would never report that. So clearly Green votes the issue not the person.

Just more proof that green is in way over her head.

Dan Rogers. We miss you.( didn’t think I would ever say that)

“I thought Sherri Green was all about downtown revitalization?”

I thought so too until I read that some of the costly already paid for spaces for decorative trees (much touted component of downtown revitalization and beautification!) were being in-filled in with decorative concrete!

P Val, bang on!

“I thought Shari Green was all about downtown revitalization? I don’t see how this vote for increased drinking seats at the casino fits with that ‘vision’.”
– I really don’t see how allowing people to drink while sitting at the slots (or not) has anything to do with downtown revitalization. Any connection to one-another would be a stretch. This statement does ring true in another way though. When Mayor Green was Councillor Green, she saw a move by city staff as possibly having a negative affect on her business downtown. She used her influence as Councillor to have this move undone even though it was seen by many others to be an improvement for the area as a whole. This was one of the first indications to me that Councillor (now Mayor) Green puts her own interests before her obligations to the city as a whole. “Mayor Green” – only if it doesn’t interfere with “Shari Green’s” agenda. (In my opinion)

If this is a real conversation about conflict of interest, it would be great to have some comment on the following:

“I would like to know if Brian Skakun and Murray Krause will recuse themselves in any matters pertaining to the union. Like say Contract negotiations or voting on the final package. Both of these councillors received considerable support from CUPE.”

Otherwise this is just more green bashing and not really an issue based discussion.

the question is if the two councillors you mention received 16% from one union then when it comes to voting on that union , you have a point, just as when Shari receives 15% of her money from one company she should also excuse herself.

Is there no policy for the mayor and city councillors to follow regarding these sorts of matters? I thought in this day and age we had a policy for pretty much everything.

I don’t see this as “green bashing” passtheveggies. This is a legitimate concern that the citizens of Prince George have a right to hear about. If Mayor Green won’t speak to this matter to opinion250 she should address her rationale for her decision making on this matter through another media source, so we can hear her side of things. Maybe she has a legitimate excuse for her vote to support the increased liquor seats at the Casino, and it is mere coincidence that they also happened to be the largest financial contributor to her campaign. It sounds like Green has demonstrated some ethics on other matters and removed herself from time to time from the vote. Would love to hear her rationale on this one. I am surprised that it is up to the individual council member or mayor to make a decision to remove themselves from a vote. Conflicts of interest and these types of matters need to be taken seriously.

@ passtheveggies: I’d be interested in seeing numbers of this “considerable support” from CUPE to Skakun and Krause, since you’re so keen on “discussing” this point. If it equates anywhere close to the 16.5% (AKA being the top financial contributor), then please elaborate. I know you’d like to think we’re all just “Green Bashing” but you know what: if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck.. it’s probably a duck. Why would she back off on the Recovery Center vote and not this one? Because she had nothing to gain and nothing to lose. On this casino vote, Green has everything to gain and everything to lose. Tran$parency. Tran$parency. Tran$parency.

Quick bit of math…to be on the conservative side let’s say each one of those 1000 additional “seats” sell on average 1 drink per day that’s 7k drinks per week.

If the house clears 50 cents on each $5 wobbly pop it sure won’t take long to recoup the $14k initial investment. I don’t see the money given to Ms Green as a donation but as an investment by Major and like any good businessman expects to see a return on it…..ROI.

When it comes to Union support i.e., CUPE, International Steel Workers Association, PPWC, etc. of course you need to add Councillor Everett to the mix and ultimately it is left up to the judgement of each councillor whether or not to excuse themselves from voting on a matter. I doubt the amount of financial contribution from Unions to Krause, Skakun and Everett was anywhere near 15 % of their campaign costs. Mayor Green’s case was an obvious situation where she most defineltly should have declared a conflict of interest based on the amount of money she received from the casino business. Even if she doesn’t feel she is in a position of COI, the right thing for her to do was to declare a perceived conflict of interest ( as most people perceive this to be) based entirely on the dollar amount she recieved from the Casino. Yes she is duly elected as Mayor to make decisions on behalf of the Citizens of PG however I, and many others feel she excercised poor judgement by not declaring a conflict of interest on this matter and she should have abstained from voting on it.

passtheveggies: States: “I would like to know if Brian Skakun and Murray Krause will recuse themselves in any matters pertaining to the union. Like say Contract negotiations or voting on the final package. Both of these councillors received considerable support from CUPE.”

The reality is that Prince George is a union town, I can’t think of a major employer in Prince George that does not have a union, and because of that you will have members on council that may be affiliated with a union and obtain some support. What is wrong with that?

Union jobs usually pay well which in turn benefit the City of Prince George, even our $100,000 Mayor who has to speak through her $$$$$ spoke-person.

I’ll say it again: I hope all the sheep that voted for Green are happy! We know those who gave at the pulpit are!!

“The reality is that Prince George is a union town, I can’t think of a major employer in Prince George that does not have a union, and because of that you will have members on council that may be affiliated with a union and obtain some support. What is wrong with that?”

The reality is that business employ’s those union workers.

Prince George is also a big business town. Prince George is also a big alcohol town!

where do you draw the line. At what point do you say, well so and so had a lawn sign during the campaign so a councillor should recuse? it is dangerous to the democratic process. For the record. I believe in campaign contribution limits. I believe very strongly that there should be constraints on contributions. However this is a very big question.

Is money speech? Are you limiting a persons right to speech by constraining their ability to participate in the democratic process?

@ Cheetos: dingdingding :)

Sometimes I am a bit dismayed about the information which surfaces later to which interests the candidates are beholden to because of having received financial election fund boosters.

I agree Prince George. I am all for electoral since reform.

For example…..

Much has been said about the size of the contribution to green 16.5 % from treasure cove.

lets look at Skaun…….total cost $7100
cupe $1500 or 21%
total union and labour $ 3700 or 52%

so I ask again…….will Skakun recuse himself from voting on the contract? Will he step aside when it comes to issues that affect labor? I think not. Pot meet kettle!

For the record I do not believe he should have to nor should he on principal.

WOW, it got so quiet all of a sudden!

Funny how the union supported guys spend so little in comparison to those that are used to buying what they want?

Brian Skakun had contributions of $7300 and expenses of $7166.63.in the 2011 civic elecetion. The Pulp, Paper and Woodworkers contributed $1500. Kayoz Consulting contributed $1500 in kind. Brian and Nellie Skakun were in for $1000. CUPE Canada, CUPE BC and CUPE Local 399 each contributed $500. The Prince George and District Labour Council spent $250, PG Global Logistics Park $300, Harry Backlin $200.00
So CUPE 399 contributed 6.8% of Skakun’s total contributions.

Three different CUPE unions contributed to Skakun’s campaign. If say Lotto BC gave Shari Green $4,000.00, the Casino in Kamloops $4,000.00 and the balance from the local Casino, fair and well. Shari Green would not vote on two of the three.

Brain Skakun does not vote on matters dealing with CUPE Canada, or CUPE BC.
—-
Incumbent Murry Krause had election contributions of $9625 and expenditures of $9594.66. Krause invested $8000 in his re-election campaign and had ten other contributions ranging from $100 to $300. That includes conations from the Prince George and District Labour Council, Prince George Global Logistics Park, Harry Backlin and Falcon Contracting.

It is important to note Krause spent $8,000 of his own money, not so with Mayor Green .

Never let the facts get in the way of the truth.

passtheveggies says: Quote – “The reality is that business employ’s those union workers.”

Since we are talking reality….the reality is that a business would not be in business if they didn’t hire workers to operate their business.

Cheetos.

im not talking about workers……im talking about unions

LOL, fun with numbers Ben.

here is what the law has to say.

Four British Columbia decisions have considered the issue of whether the receipt of campaign contributions forms a pecuniary interest which could result in a potential conflict of interest situation.

The policy framework for campaign financing requires that contributions be disclosed.

The Community Charter does not state that campaign contributions create a pecuniary interest (direct or indirect) which may create a potential conflict of interest.

If candidates for local government office may be precluded from subsequently voting on matters in which contributors have an interest, citizens may be discouraged from taking part in the democratic process by supporting the candidate or candidates of their choice.

From Feamley v. Sharp:
No one would dispute the fact that a councillor having taken the oath of office is obligated to respect the Local Government Act and perform their duties honestly. They must make their decisions upon what they believe is in the best interests of the municipality and its electors. On the other hand, it is clear that every elector should be eligible to run for office in the municipality regardless of their status, their wealth, or occupation of their spouse. Elections cost money and they are most frequently funded by contributions from friends, family and political or other supporters of the candidate. It is a fact in the real world that contributions are made by those who frequently hope that the candidate, if elected, will think as they do and support those ideals, policies and projects which they support. This is so whether the contributors be trade unions, corporations, institutions or wealthy individuals. It is a traditional part of our democratic system to permit (with certain limitations) those wishing to run for office to accept campaign donations. There is nothing in the legislation to prohibit it, though the Local Government Act does require full disclosure of donations beyond a minimal amount.

Never let the law get in the way of a good witch hunt.

So, what was your involvement in her campaign, Vegetable? Come on, you can tell us.

Also I think it is already evident by his actions that Skakun would remove himself from any vote where there might even APPEAR to be a conflict. He’s already done so, as has Hall. They appear to be people of principle.

Krause, that’ll be up to him, the same as this instance was up to Green. She chose not to recuse, for some very unclear reason. That decision is there for all to see, now and when the next election rolls around.

And might I suggest that there will be a very concerted effort (can you say DIKE) by the people who fight for the citizens of this city to bring the actions of this mayor to the attention of the voters prior to the election.

Might even see a sizeable increase in voter turnout, say wot?

Ben im glad you have chimed in…..interested in your opinion.

Question for Meisner:

when it comes to the democratic process money is speech. Supporting like minded people by contributing to a campaign, having a lawn sign, volunteering etc. is a form of speech.

As a web site that holds it right to speak so firmly, would you be in favour of a law that limits how much you could write about a candidate supportive or otherwise during an election period?

This web site and other media are a business and exist to make MONEY your words either support or don’t support candidates. Newspapers and websites cost money to operate should we limit the about of money media outlets are able to spend on reporting during campaign writ periods?

you see the whole issue is a very slippery slope.

Is it a conflict for an elected official to spend tax payers money on advertising with a media outlet if the outlet has covered the candidate in a favourable light?

Im not asking these questions to be cute. I think its an important conversation and I’m genuinely interested in your thoughts.

LOL, “silly, OneDemocrat tricks are for kids”

Did it not dawn on any of you that its curious why Shari’s campaign manager was helping to head up the counter petition process??????

Did any of you every think that she was saddled with this issue from the previous Mayor and wanted the Dike to fail?

Was it not curious to you that she was handing out counter petition forms at Winstons.

I don’t understand why @passtheveggies thinks we’re all this whimsical Shari Green “witchhunt”. You seriously want to believe that “all of us” doubted her from the get-go? You think we take enormous pleasure in questioning our mayors motives on her decision making? Although, I’m amazed you’re still supporting her and her decisions, you have to realize that her lackadaisical attitude has left “us” with little faith in believing that she can be transparent. Don’t paint all of us like we’re morons. We just want some common courtesy and some answers.

Why don’t you make an appointment with her and ask her your questions?

Veggies: “….and wanted the dike to fail?”

What kind of crap are you slinging? How did she vote on accepting the federal/provincial grant for the dike?

How did she vote on first 3 reading approval for the loan authorization by-law?

You are full of it, and your attempt to deflect the issue of conflict is lame.

People are not comparing apples to apples. Green voting on a matter directly involving a campaign donor is not the same as Skakun voting on a matter in which a campaign donor had involvement. In the latter situation, Skakun would be voting on a contract that was negotiated by two independent parties. Saying he couldn’t vote on that would be as goofy as saying that he couldn’t vote on it because he pays property taxes to the City of PG, the other party to the contract.

If a motion came before council, for example, in which a CUPE local was asking for a city grant for whatever reason (and they were the only party to the motion), then in that case, yes, Skakun should excuse himself and based on his past record, I suspect he would.

In the Mayor’s case we don’t know for sure if there was a conflict of interest. That said, you would have to be dumber than a bag of hammers to believe that there wasn’t a perceived conflict (a perceived conflict doesn’t necessarily mean that there is a conflict). In most all situations in the private or public sector, a perceived conflict is treated essentially the same way as a real conflict and the Mayor should have excused herself because of that.

Sorry NMG, thats not the case. The contract is with the union. The union is the donor. he would be voting on an item that directly involved a campaign contributor.

however to follow your logic, with Skakun, there would at least be a perceived conflict and he should remove himself.

don’t get me wrong, I don’t believe that there is a conflict nor do I believe that he should remove himself just as I believe she did not need to either.

Sorry passtheveggies, I think common sense sort of dictates that a councillor voting on a collective agreement negotiated in good faith between two independent parties, is slightly different than the mayor voting on a motion that would provide a significant financial benefit to her primary campaign donor.

Are you honestly not able to separate the two situations from each other? Remember, we’re talking a PERCEIVED conflict of interest here. Do you think that the average person would equate those two situations in the same light?

You can stretch the logic all you want, but when it comes to a perceived conflict of interest, you often only need to use the sniff test.

passtheGREENveggies?

HAH! ^^

It is late in the postings on this one but I did want to say I agree with “passtheveggies” in one sense and that is – there should be clearer rules and third party oversight of those rules to ensure they apply equally to all elected officials.

If there was ever the need for a “municipal conflict of interest commissioner” this situation demonstrates it well. Right now it is a “he said – she said situation” with no recourse for legitmate concerns. There is a provincial CoI Commissioner and a federal one so one not at the city level? Hell, the province put an “Municipal Auditor” in place so why not expand their role a bit.

Hopefully Brian Skakun is listening and can lobby for this type of position when he puts forward his planned resolution to put a cap on election spending and ban both business and union municipal campaign contributions.

That type of legislation already exisits in most provinces and would prevent this type of controversy. Heck the most a business in Toronto can contribute to a municipal campaign I think is $1,000. Quite different here in the wild wild west.

The Mayor only votes in the event of a tied vote. What happened here?

Fun to read, but here is the skinny. Getting to be the same thing over nd over again though. No one is raising any new points.

Her vote either way or no vote at all would not have changed the outcome in this case, so the whole thing is moot.

Now, perhaps we should spend our effort in making some suggestion of whether there should be some guideline or even some regulation of what constitutes a conflict of interest for a Councillor and Mayor, since it is most obvious to me that people do receive such donations and given the type of companies and organizations who give donations, there is a high probability that over the term of office, the donor will have some event coming in front of Council on which a vote is required.

“The Mayor only votes in the event of a tied vote. What happened here?”

That is easy. This is Prince George. In Prince George, not only does the mayor vote, but the mayor – the current one and some past ones – will occasionally indicate very early how he/she will vote, thus potentially influencing how Councillors might vote.

No rule against that either. But there ought to be.

Amazing how fast more drinking seats can pass for a “Major” contributor to Mayor Green’s election when none supporters can’t even get a first reading at council meetings. Remeber Coyotes?

“perhaps we should spend our effort in making some suggestion of whether there should be some guideline or even some regulation of what constitutes a conflict of interest for a Councillor and Mayor”

I agree Gus. In the Haldi Rd issue not only did Green hire the project manager for her campaign manager 3 days after 3rd reading, but 2 other councillors , who voted for the rezoning, received contributions from the proponents, I believe in the amount of $1000 each. So again, conflict of interest?

I agree with “gus” and “littlebird” – put a process in place to ensure there is oversight on potential conflict of interests at the municipal level.

As for the Haldi Road issue, I seem to recall someone on here saying Marshall Smith was working for the mayor’s campaign less than 48 hours after third reading was passed. So that would mean she just happened to meet him by accident the very next day and just out of the blue he volunteered his support?

Any discussion with him helping her campaign prior to that date would have meant “the conflict”, which she herself admitted existed, was in place “before” the public hearing. It was politically convenient for her to declare the conflict (on Ben’s show) after it came to light that Mr. Smith was running her campaign because it was after the public hearing had concluded and she had already helped expedite the public hearing (her and stolze I think made sure it moved up in the schedule) and ensured it passed.

Again, clearer rules and body that has third party oversight, would have cleared all this up and restored some accountability to municipal politicians.

Hola guys and girls, mamacita here. Steve Martin (the comedian), on his first album, put it so eloquently that mamacita couldn’t resist repeating the words that were forever engraved in vinyl:

the businessman said to the politician I found a way to turn dog crap into gold.

The politician said to the businessman: so if you see me sniffing around your shoes, you’ll know why…..

politics and business together forever…

perhaps the business man showed mayor green how to turn dog crap into gold, that would explain a lot! If she starts sniffing around your shoes…beware…be afraid, be very afraid!

let us now consider the french revolution…heads did roll…heads may not roll in the next election, but you can be sure this sizeable little mexicali chiquita is not voting for the green gringa!

it’s like the old breck commercial on tv in the 70s…i told one friend, and she told one friend, and so on, and so on, and so on. the people do have a voice, and ms. green may think she has pulled the wool over our eyes, however, we voted her in, and we can certainly vote her out next term.

Perhaps the Mayor and Council should take a stroll along our boulevards and frolic in our lovely parks…which were lovely before they laid off all of the parks workers!

This chiquita’s little muchachas loved to frolic in the park. Alas, this is no longer possible. Why you ask? There is so much broken glass, garbage, syringes and needles hiding beneath the grass that grows in our “green space” that mamacita will not allow her family to frolic in the park anymore.

Speaking of green space, perhaps we should consider renaming PG the Pothole and Dandelion capital of Canada!

There’s tourism dollars in them thar hills kids! Come one, come all. See the world’s biggest pothole, right in your own back yard.

Oh, sorry, you lost a tire? No problem, send the bill to the Mayor and council, I am sure they will pay up before the next election.

That’s all folks! nitey nite….

let us now consider the french revolution…heads did roll…heads may not roll in the next election, but you can be sure this sizeable little mexicali chiquita is not voting for the green gringa!

it’s like the old breck commercial on tv in the 70s…i told one friend, and she told one friend, and so on, and so on, and so on. the people do have a voice, and ms. green may think she has pulled the wool over our eyes, however, we voted her in, and we can certainly vote her out next term.

Perhaps the Mayor and Council should take a stroll along our boulevards and frolic in our lovely parks…which were lovely before they laid off all of the parks workers!

This chiquita’s little muchachas loved to frolic in the park. Alas, this is no longer possible. Why you ask? There is so much broken glass, garbage, syringes and needles hiding beneath the grass that grows in our “green space” that mamacita will not allow her family to frolic in the park anymore.

Speaking of green space, perhaps we should consider renaming PG the Pothole and Dandelion capital of Canada!

There’s tourism dollars in them thar hills kids! Come one, come all. See the world’s biggest pothole, right in your own back yard.

Oh, sorry, you lost a tire? No problem, send the bill to the Mayor and council, I am sure they will pay up before the next election.

That’s all folks! nitey nite….