New Rules for IPG
Tuesday, December 18, 2012 @ 3:59 AM
Prince George, B.C.- There area couple of new elements in the service agreement between Initiatives Prince Geoprge and the City of Prince George.
New in the service agreement is a provision that IPG will "follow the spirit of the Financial Information Act’s regulation with respect to its financial reporting of employee remuneration and expenses paid and individual supplier payments. "
That is not the only new provision as there is one that calls for the Mayor and Board Chair to meet quarterly.
IPG was set up to be at arms length of elected officials so as to avoid any political pressure and this quarterly meeting is a new connection which did not exist as a requirement in the previous agreement.
The involvement of politicians is further entrenched in a clause that IPG will conduct a strategic planning session each year "to which members of Council are invited." This is the first time Council will have input on IPG’s strategic planning as a condition of the service agreement.
And then there is the change in governance.
When IPG was initially set up, you may recall there was something established called "Progress Prince George". It was a group of 21 high profile and influential Prince George residents, which was to advise IPG and make suggestions for names to be nominated to move on to the Board of Directors for IPG. Council’s role was to approve those nominations.
Not so for the next year.
The names brought forth as nominees to be a Director on the IPG Board of Directors for 2013 , came from the current Board of Directors.
IPG CEO Heather Oland says Progress Prince George is "in limbo" and it’s future role with IPG has yet to be determined.
Governance of IPG, is under review says Oland.
Altering the governance of IPG is no easy task as it is intertwined with the articles of incorporation which also must be changed. There has been no suggestion as to when the governance and articles update process will be complete.
Comments
Shut it down. its not a good old persons club.. we dont need another one.
Oops.. I meant its turning into another old guys club
Did I miss something? At what Council meeting did the mayor and council have discussion about gassing Progress Prince George and changing the governance structure of IPG?
Why are these decisions being made behind closed doors. Sounds like just another effort to centralize power in one office on the fifth floor of city hall.
Maybe I’m missing something… I see where there is increased transparency, but where is IPG’s accountbility? How do we know PG taxpayers are getting their money’s worth? Do we just have to take their word for it?
As far as I can tell, all IPG does is make websites, brochures, and occasionally travels around to ‘promote’ PG in one way or another. Why do we need them again?
21 individuals comprise what is called “Progress Prince George”. Hmmmm? I would like to presume that each of these individuals receive what is called a “stipend” (courtesy of me and thee) for the minimal exercise of recommending Prince George as a great place to hang out in and invest in after the end of each great dinner party or soiree’. Can’t help but be cynical. After all it s my tax dollars. Feel free to correct me on this. Or twist it to make it more acceptable. It won’t cure my cynicism but go for it anyway.
The suggestion was made to KPMG to have IPG shut down. I dont see anything to indicate that KPMG or the City are willing to look at that suggestion. In fact, it seems they are intent on giving them more rope to hang themselves.
They were quick to look at the Civic Centre, Swimming Pool, Pine Valley Golf, course as ways to save money, but seem to be blind to the savings of $1 Million or more per year by dumping IPG.
Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm.
Well, it’s really simple when you connect the dots. Look at our mayors financial backers and connect them to the companies associated with the DBIA, and voila. You have the means to give someone a cushy job with no accountability, transparency, or a short-term or long-term vision.
I would be a little more positive about IPG if they actually listed some goals and reported on the progress/regress of said goals.
Trying to promote more business and getting more citizens into this city to increase the tax base, is the BS ponzi scheme that municipalities continue. Eventually, as we see with our road situation here in PG, our infrastructure collapses and we will simply not be able to pay for it, no matter what IPG predicts in terms of growth. This system is doomed to failure.
Speaking of the DBIA, do they still exist?
Speaking of the lights on Connaught Hill project … how is it doing?
Speaking of the skating rink at the Civic Centre, how is it doing?
Speaking of the timeline for building something (6 residences or whatever) above the City Parkade at the previous Bingo hall, how is it doing?
Speaking of the 4 or so condo units built on Victoria opposite the HSBC building, how are they doing …. sold out yet, ready for more of the same downtown?
It is a beautiful day out today. Great opportunity to take some pictures.
Intitiatives Prince George Development Corporation was established in 1976
http://www.ic.gc.ca/app/ccc/srch/nvgt.do?lang=eng&prtl=1&sbPrtl=&estblmntNo=234567005597&profile=cmpltPrfl&profileId=501&app=sold
Progress Prince George was created in 2003.
Oh, by the way, in my humble opinion, if IPG would ever be allowed to actually be a true development corporation, it would be much easier for it to be effective and its portfolio to be measured in terms of value it adds to the City’s mandate.
But the “development” is a total misnomer. It should be called the Prince George Marketing Corporation. The effectiveness of a marketing corporation which is locked into a single client is hard to determine.
In my mind, that is the root cause of the problem we have had for decades.
to “Harbinger’s” point above. The people on progress Pg didn’t get any compensation but were volunteers representing various business sectors in the community. The idea as I understand it was that they were there to give advice and comments on various endeavors of the city and IPG.
It appears to be a case of “thanks for putting in the time to give advice but IPG and the mayor and council don’t need it anymore.” Maybe some of those business leaders aren’t among the favored insiders so they had to go.
I would be very interested to hear Howard Stern’s ideas on a better ‘system’! Even just one or two concrete ideas.
IPG was originally the Regional Development Corporation…working regionally to build more economic activity. While Colin Kinsley was mayor, the name and focus was changed…no longer was this a regional agency – which included communities such as McKenzie in its service area. Instead, the focus changed to a very narrow focus on reviving downtown Prince George. Progress PG was just a spinoff created by Initiatives PG.
In my opinion, this organization has too much baggage, much of it negative, to be efficient. It engages the same citizens year after year after year, while ignoring the other 97 percent. I am certain there are other more necessary and historically successful efforts in the city which could do a whole lot more with a $1.2 million budget than what it does with IPG
The City could do a whole lot more with a $l.2 million budget than what it does with IPG. I think it should be turfed.
Harb, you got it right.
Thanks
I very much like the idea of making IPG accountable to the Financial Information Act’s regulations.
Tax payer funded organizations like IPG, the tourism boards, and related crown type corporations should not be above reporting on financial information such as remunerations of its employees and management. This is an improvement long overdue.
That said I think IPG is a waste of money and if investors want to invest in PG they should go to city hall if they have any questions. The selling feature for PG should be quality infrastructure, sustainable tax rates and spending, and quality of life for those living here… IMO.
Comments for this article are closed.