I really hate the term “in camera”

It is deceiving for anyone that is not used to board meeting.

Yes ….. most people do not think of “camera” as being synonymous with “room” but meaning a visual recording device.

There are many reaons why the vote should be brought out. If all Councillors are in favour of doing that after the fact, it can easily be done and should be done in a “transparent” governance system.

If they will not do it, we need to be reminded one more time that these Councillors are unwilling to share their point of views and decisions with the people who vote for them.

I sat in on a public meeting with contenders for the upcoming Watcom County Council lasst night. An amazing sharing of the philosophies about some key decisions the members will have to do over the next year regarding their “gateway” project, a new coal terminal. Same concerns as Enbridge – “full compensation for all costs” – social, economic, environmental – is written into their ordinance as one of 7 criteria that have to be met for the Environmental Impact Study.

The frankness in the discussion compared to PG most certainly and the RDFFG was mind boggling.

In fact, it appears that the local county representatives are in a position to stop the interstate project by not giving a permit for the terminal to be built.

What a difference!!

So he voted “No” to the meeting and Mayor Green then counted him as a “No” to the sale? Or was he defaulted to a “Yes” vote?

It does seem rather strange that this issue would go to a closed meeting. The fact that the land was being considered for sale was common knowledge, and the City is on record as stating they would expect to get between $11 and $17 Million dollars for the land,. So why the closed meeting??

Is it because those Councillors who were in favour of selling this greenspace did not want the general public to know that they voted for the sale??

Now that the decision has been made to keep Pine Valley, the minutes of this closed meeting should be made public. The City can do this on their own accord, or if necessary this information can be accessed through the Freedom of Information Process.

The City should be challenged on these closed meetings, and on their **Brown Bag Meetings** as it appears on the surface that they are in contravention of the Community Charter.

Lets hope the City becomes more transparent on its own, rather than citizens having to take them to task on this issue.

interceptor – they took a vote whether the meeting should be closed or open before the meeting happened.

I got that gus, I was just misreading into it that Skakun had then not attended the meeting, so I was wondering how the count got to nine total… But I am catching up now LOL

it is not surprising at least 4 councillors don’t want to be identified with their position. i suspect their reason for seeking office was less than ‘to serve community’.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qlvSaLhbes4

You got it right Brian!

Council should share with us the result as to who voted which way on the attempt to sell the property. And while they are doing that they should also release the report that was prepared by Mr. Wells on the options on the possible sale.

Ben you should submit an FOI request on the vote and staff report so us poor taxpayers can have an idea of what our elected representatives are up to. Or maybe someone will leak that info to the media. lol

“there must be a record of the vote kept some where”

Yes, but the minutes would be sparse, with little if any details of who said what. Just look at the minutes of the open meetings. However, they are recorded on video.

I am not sure if in-camera sessions can be accessed through FOI. Ben would know since he has followed the process several/many times.

Brian, I admire your courage but don’t have much faith in your understanding of the law.

Land, Legal, & Labor deliberations are always held behind closed doors (at least initially).
Council can choose to bring it out afterwards but those discussions always start there.

curm, given your usage of ‘understaning’ i don’t have much in your faith of knowledge of the ‘law’ :)

It is only two votes that are in question as I think everyone knows which way the mayor and her little lap dog voted:D

Roll over and I’ll scratch the tummy, Good Boy!!

I got this from the City of Prince George website, I guess minutes from closed in-camera meeting are exempt from Access to Information requests… too bad!

Depending on what you ask for, you may not get access to all information contained within the records that are responsive to your request.

The Act includes several specific exemptions to disclosure, which means that by law, certain types of records and information is to be protected and not made available to the public. Some exemptions are mandatory while others are exercised at the discretion of the FOIPOP Head (as defined in the City’s Records Administration Bylaw No. 6277, 1994) based on the relevant circumstances surrounding the request.

For example, reasons for refusing access to information held by the City of Prince George are generally related to the protection of:
personal privacy;
businesses and trade secrets or unit pricing;
solicitor-client privilege;
deliberations of Council and Council Committees that are authorized to be held in the absence of the public (closed or in camera meetings);
policy advice, staff recommendations or draft regulations not yet made public;
information that may harm a law enforcement matter (this includes bylaw enforcement matters);
information that may harm the financial interests of the City or a public body.
If you do not get access to all information you requested, you will be advised of the reasons for refusal and the provision of the Act on which the refusal is based.

So quoting the 250 News article last night, “Pine Valley Spared”:
“Mayor Green advised that during the closed meeting today, there was a split vote, 5-4 in favour that Pine Valley remain a golf course, that the City retain it as is.

Mayor Green also advised that there was significant discussion during the closed meeting, but the details of that discussion will not be released. However, she said the decision can be shared.”

The Community Chater says the city could hold the closed door meeting. Mayor Green said while the content of the discussion would not be released, the vote result would be. No problem there.
How each council member voted can also be released without disclosing the content of the discussion. And the taxpaying voting public deserves to know how each councillor voted on a possible large land sale which could involve anywhere between 10 and 17 million dollars.

The electorate deserves to be fully informed when voting in the next election.
Council is only there to conduct business on behalf of the taxpayer, and in the taxpayers best interests, one would think. The voters elect the council and should be able to have all relevant information when making those choices.
So what’s the problem with giving the public the rundown of how each councillor voted?

Of course the people of PG should know how each council member voted. It’s simply cowardly to not release this information. There is no reason whatsoever that the members of council should not be prepared to provide justification to the people of PG as to why they voted in the manner that they did.

No doubt is is the “4” who don’t want the how did you vote released. Afraid to let the public know how they voted.

It may be all of them Resident – 4 dont want the public to know and 5 dont want the developer to know…

a_britishcolumbian, was referring to Skakun’s conviction of breaching the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act.

If you are going to call me on grammar, I would make sure your spelling is correct first.

For clarification, I agree that the non-disclosure of the vote is unjust. Just emphasizing that if Skakun says it’s legal, doesn’t make it so.

I need to know who voted for and who voted against selling Pine Valley. Reason: I keep track of how everyone is performing so I can vote accordingly in the next municipal election which can not come soon enough!

Keep that up and I will not bother to cast a vote! Apparently that is what they want!

“realitycheck” Your post that “Land, Legal, & Labor deliberations are always held behind closed doors” is not correct.

The Community Charter, which Council is supposed to follow, is much more restrictive on what must or can be discussed in a closed meeting.

There is nothing in the Community Charter requirement that says real estate MUST be discussed in a closed meeting. Check it out for yourself [url]http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/–%20C%20–/41_Community%20Charter%20SBC%202003%20c.%2026/00_Act/03026_04.xml#section90[url/]

No matter how you look at it – mayor and council had a choice to have the discussion in public or vote to hide behind closed doors.

Maybe if Mayor and Council were a little more transparent and accountable for their views and actions we would better understand what the business case is for keeping it as parkland or selling it off.

If it was a 5-4 vote and they are able to tell us the vote result, why not tell us who voted to sell the 40 acres of parkland and who voted to keep it? All it would take to make the vote and the report of Mr. Wells public is a 5-4 vote of Council.

Brian it is back to you to make that notice of motion at the next public meeting of Council.

sorry about the hyperlink. Try this one to get section 90 of the Community Charter Meetings that may or must be closed to the public.

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/LOC/freeside/–%20C%20–/41_Community%20Charter%20SBC%202003%20c.%2026/00_Act/03026_04.xml#section90

Skakun voting not to go into a closed meeting means nothing… How each council member and the mayor actually voted means everything.

No one knows who voted yes or no to the sale.. may as well been a closed meeting. Would still have the results with no one knowing who voted what..

Well played Brian.. you make noise but say nothing.

Thank you Mitch2 ….. that has been stated on this several times, especially recently. But plain language instructions are too difficult to understand by far too many people who, however, continue to provide interpretations which are totally wrong. Worse than that, once it is explained to them, they continue to make the same mistake all over again.

Remember, the reason purportedly given by her royal highness for being in camera because potential developers may be named. Nothing to do with who voted in which way.

They could have agreed, at the closed meeting, what the media relase afterwards would look like. Better still they could have identified which parts of the closed session would be brought to an open Council meeting.

“Skakun voting not to go into a closed meeting means nothing”

Actually it does mean something to principled people. It means that he felt that the subject matter did not contain material which were sensitive enough to go to a closed meeting. It means the others have a different view. That is allowed. Everyone follows their principles. This is good.

However, the councillors should be declaring their general principles at eleection time. They do not deal with such imprtant issues. Instead they deal with roads and garbage and …. well …. we’ll just keep it with garbage …. a sort of fit all category, isn’t it?? ;-)

Interceptor: It may be all of them Resident – 4 dont want the public to know and 5 dont want the developer to know…

Bingo!

Why is it that Skakun always has to be in the lime light and stir the pot. Anuthing to have his name in the press!!!!

“Why is it that Skakun always has to be in the lime light and stir the pot”

Why would anyone in PG NOT want their elected representatives to communicate and share their opinion with them?

The bigger question is why are the other councillors so seemingly afraid to get out in the public and dialogue with the people they supposedly represent?

I taught my kids a long time ago that the hardest part of living and demonstrating principles, and to living up to your word and promises….is that there is a small but loud group that does no such thing and the first thing the latter does, is to try to intimidate and degrade the former in earnest, with name calling and false accusations.

It is tough. That being said, most people and the people that really count, can see right thru the BS and draw their own conclusions about who the real fool is.

Stay loud Mr. Skakun, someone has to do it. Appreciate it.

My understanding is that you go in-camera when the City needs to purchase land so that developers can not benefit.

My understanding of the Prince George Golf and Curling Club is that the city gave them a basically permanent lease for one dollar for the land it sits on with the condition that they open it to the public and if it folds or relocates the land reverts back to the city. Does anybody out there know if this is correct?

curm, i had no issue with your grammar. your usage of the word, you seem to contradict yourself as ‘understanding’ would apply to someone that obeys the ‘law’ or believes in the ‘law’.

not sure what i spelled wrong, i realize my words came out mixed up. i choose to use a standard keyboard and touchpad but really they are not adequate for my physical requirements.

all in good spirit no matter what :)

Hey, “annoyedatpeoplesstupidity01” … seems that lots of other people are in agreement with you handle … problem is, everyone does not quite agree who the stupid people are …. you may actually be one in disguise … LOL

P Val: “Well played Brian.. you make noise but say nothing.”

Exactly. That’s about all he does.

I see no reason for council to have held the ” conversation” on whether or not to sell pine valley behind closed doors unless there was a real potential buyer interested in purchasing the land where public knowledge of the price tag could jeopardize the sale.

I understood council was dealing with this item (the sale of PV ) as one of the many revenue generating “opportunities” that came out of the core review which is already public knowledge….now all of a sudden council cannot discuss this quick money- making. ” opportunity ” from the list presented in the core review?

The general public have a right to know how and why their elected representatives voted the way they did. Having conversations on matters of public interest behind closed doors certainly is not representative of open and transparent government.

Why would the city of Prince George have a potential deal for the sale of Pine Valley, when it was not forsale? Once again someone at city hall puts the horse before the cart! This is upsetting to the public and a waste of tax dollars in wadges putting together these proposals. City of Prince George staff, sell what is yours to sell, not what the people of this city believe to be held in your trust as parkland.

“I see no reason for council to have held the ” conversation” on whether or not to sell pine valley behind closed doors unless there was a real potential buyer interested in purchasing the land where public knowledge of the price tag could jeopardize the sale.”

Here is a scenario:

1. Decide in open Council whether the City wants to entertain the possibility of selling the site.

2. If so, decide on what conditions might be on the sale – land use, quality of a planned unit development (no subdivision of land), promote densifications, use of proceeds of the sale, etc.

3. Prepare a request for proposal to purchase and develop, including criteria on which the proposal will be judged and that sale is conditional on proposal meeting the criteria.

Absolutely none of that ought to go to a private session of Council. In fact, it would likely be in contravention of the laws governing municipalities.

“what the people of this city believe to be held in your trust as parkland.”

As I have written before on this site, in order for something to be held in trust as parkland, it has to be registered as such on the title. Once that is done, I understand that it is virtually impossible to remove it. It would need provincial approval. I highly doubt there is any park in PG that has that protection – Fort George, Rainbow, etc.

A P on a zoning designation simply means that, like anything else, it can be rezoned, go through a public hearing and Council decides after listening and in their almighty wisdom might rezone it.

I think we have seen that in action recently. Not that I think they would do it with the above named parks, but they certainly would do it with a lot of others.

There are plenty of neighbourhood “parks” which would make ideal higher density housing sites with some common park-like areas left for the new infill housing and existing housing.

Let’s get the facts. As previously suggested, can Ben get these facts through FOE?

Anyone can obtain information via FOI. Maybe someone else besides Ben could obtain it if they want to and then share that with the public. I’m sure Ben would appreciate a helping hand.

Recent editorial in Nanaimo Daily News about too much perceived secrecy in their city council dealings. Sounds very similar to the same concerns in Prince George. The suggested solution is for the province to change the community charter to allow fewer areas of decisions which are not open to the public. Get onto the your MLA about this.