Closed Door Meeting Raises Questions
Thursday, June 13, 2013 @ 4:19 AM
Prince George, B.C.- The Prince George City Council vote in a closed session on the future of the Pine Valley Golf Course has raised some questions.While Prince George Mayor Shari Green released the results of the vote, 5-4 in favour of retaining the golf course, the names of Councillors associated with each side of that vote were not released.
Here is the full announcement from the Mayor:
“So we have had a closed meeting earlier today of Council and we have made a decision with respect to Pine Valley and as is required by the Community Charter, we’ve reviewed the staff report regarding land sales of Pine Valley. And by a vote of 5-4 council has chosen to retain Pine Valley as a golf course for the citizens of Prince George. We’ve had some extensive debate and discussion and I want to thank councillors and all of our staff who have worked very hard on that and we’ve had some very thorough discussion and debate on the matter so thank you everybody for that. And just so everyone’s clear, the debate and the viewpoints and the details that were discussed in a closed meeting do have to remain there. We do have the ability to share with the public what the decision was and we’ve done that now via this open meeting and again, the decision is to retain Pine Valley as a golf course. We wanted to share that, we committed that we would get that announcement out as soon as we had one for you, so, there it is.”
So the first question is, why was this matter discussed behind closed doors in the first place?
The process requires that Council vote on whether to discuss the matter in a closed session. We now know Councillor Brian Skakun was the only Councillor to oppose discussing this matter behind closed doors. How he voted once the meeting was closed is not known, nor can he tell us how he voted as that would violate the rules governing a closed session, but, he has said, that in his opinion, there was no reason to move this discussion behind closed doors.
Skakun is not alone in that thought.
Former Mayor, Dan Rogers, is also questioning the move “"I would concur with Councillor Skakun’s assessment that there is likely very little justification for having the discussion about changing the land use and selling the property in a closed session, particularly since up to this stage all the discussion has been public."
In her announcement of the closed door decision, Mayor Green makes reference to the closed door session as being a requirement of the Community Charter because it dealt with land sales. In letters written to those who offered comment to Mayor and Council on the Pine Valley issue she has said the matter would first be discussed in a closed meeting “due to Community Charter requirements regarding land sales”.
The former Mayor disagrees with the interpretation that land sales must be dealt with behind closed doors “"Despite some reports, the Community Charter does not say that all real estate matters must be discussed in a closed meeting” says Dan Rogers, “ On the contrary, it actually leaves it up to Council to decide and even puts restrictions on that decision such that the real estate matter can only be discussed in closed "if" Council believes the public discussion ‘could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality."
Although no one can confirm it ( to do so would violate the confidentiality rules) Council would have had to agree on a motion to make the final vote public, although that exact motion and the final vote details were also not made public.
It is also clear that Council could vote to release the balance of the information the public would like to have access to, specifically, how each Councillor voted.
Under section 117 of the Community Charter, which deals with matters of confidentiality, it states:
(1) A council member or former council member must, unless specifically authorized otherwise by council,
(a) keep in confidence any record held in confidence by the municipality, until the record is released to the public as lawfully authorized or required, and(b) keep in confidence information considered in any part of a council meeting or council committee meeting that was lawfully closed to the public, until the council or committee discusses the information at a meeting that is open to the public or releases the information to the public.
So the second question is, why doesn’t Council want the vote details released?
Former Mayor, and long time Councillor Dan Rogers says not releasing the information could be damaging to the whole Council “Council still has the authority to release the staff report that was tabled in the Closed meeting on Monday and also disclose who voted which way, all it takes is a simple motion of Council. It is hard to imagine any reason why they would not release that information at this stage now that the matter has been dealt with. By not disclosing all the information, the lack of transparency and accountability will likely dog them the rest of their term on Council and worse, it will create greater mistrust of politicians."
Comments
council members if you were not prepared to share how you voted it is maybe possible that you our not honest in your choice of yes or no.
If unprepared to take the heat of your descision it is time to step down. The city of Prince George deserves better accountability.
Council members if you were not prepared to share how you voted it is maybe possible that you were not honest in your choice of yes or no.
If unprepared to stand behind your vote it is time to step down. The city of Prince George deserves better accountability.
IMO any sale of park land funds should have to be rolled back into parkland infrastructure. It should be a city bi-law IMO.
How about getting that poor horse in front of the cart again? Allow council to vote in a public council meeting as to whether or not they want a matter like this one discussed in an open council session or in camera. Then follow the majority decision. Mayor and the council are supposed to be a team. It’s called democracy.
With the exception of maybe one vote, one can pretty well visulize who voted for and against. However, I don’t think it is right the way it was done behind closed doors.
I don’t understand this city council, it seems like they prefer being controversial. Shouldn’t the operation of city hall and city council be transparent to the city they represent? I know, how naive is that? I continue to be underwhelmed .
HAH !!!!… I almost wet myself reading the line…” it will create greater mistrust of politicians ” …
Nothing… I repeat NOTHING could create “greater” mistrust of politicians… and therin lies the truth.
There is not enough room on this website… nay… there is not enough room on the whole internet to list the sources of mistrust of politicians… everywhere !
:-)
V.
I have stopped watching council meetings altogether. They appear to me to be just a ritual and a requirement that has to be fulfilled according to the charter. They seem to be just a rubber stamping of decisions which have been made beforehand on a different higher non-transparent level. When a real important issue arises and a councillor becomes vocal and steps out of line and doesn’t follow the herd feathers get ruffled.
Just my opinion, of course.
We do not hear to much from the lap dog these days ….. where is Spitz?
“So we have a Mayor, and Council as well, who do not understand the Charter. In other words, they are functionally illiterate”
There is a worse alternative and that would be that they felt that 90(1)(e) of the Community Charter applied:
– The acquisition, disposition or expropriation of land or improvements, if the council considers that disclosure could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality;
If that were the case, then not only are they functionally illiterate, but they are also analytically compromised. In either case, it doesn’t say much for the ability of that collective group to lead the affairs of the city.
To make up a quote from mayor green..
“We are so incompetent we don’t want the voting public to know what a waste of air we ALL are, and if it gets out how we voted we would be gone next election”
Division 3 (92) of the Community Charter.
REQUIREMENT’S BEFORE MEETING IS CLOSED.
(92) Before holding a closed meeting or part of a meeting that is to be closed to the public, a Council must state, by resolution passed in a public meeting,
(a) the fact that the meeting or part is to be closed, and
(b) the basis under the applicable subsection of section 90 on which the meeting or part is to be closed.
I am not aware of any resolution being passed to take the issue of selling Pine Valley Golf Course to a closed meeting.
I might have missed this resolution, however if not, then the meeting itself is in contravention of the Community Charter.
Mayor Green states. â And just so everyoneâs clear, the debate and the viewpoints and the details that were discussed in a closed meeting do have to remain there. We do have the ability to share with the public what the decision was and weâve done that now via this open meeting and again, the decision is to retain Pine Valley as a golf course.”
It sure does appear that the majority of council, with the exception of councilor Skakun, erred in judgment and exercised a blatant misuse of the community charter in this case.
IMHO and in the view of most people in Prince George, the debate, the viewpoints and why each councilor voted the way they did on the matter, should not have been conducted in a closed session of council as it appears they had no legal reason for doing so. By council having the discussion on this matter behind closed doors and by not sharing and defending their individual vote on the matter in an open public meeting of council is wrong on so many levelsâ¦this decision of council will come back and bite them in the future.
One of the Councillors should submit a notice of motion to have council bring to an open session the results of each councillorâs vote on this matter and why they voted the way they did. The decision has been made and now there is no reason not to do this.
I donât appreciate having to guess how our elected representatives voted on a matter of public interestâ¦â¦but here goes my guess anyway. Mayor Green, Councillors Stoltz, Wilbur and Khoeler for the sale of Pine Valley and Councillors Skakun, Hall, Frizzell, Everett and Krause against the sale.
it is not just that they won’t reveal who voted which way. That is just silly.
But they also don’t want us to see the information that was probably prepared by administration that would hopefully outline the pros and cons of selling off the 40 acres of parkland.
There must be some rationale for selling it so why are they treating us like kids and not sharing that info? Maybe it would help us understand what the h— they are thinking.
We elected them, we pay their salaries and we also pay the salaries for that managers that work there so why all the secret discussion?
It is likely watching a movie til almost the very end and then have someone say, you are not mature enough to watch the ending, you have to leave.
It would be funny if it were not so insulting.
NMG quote includes the phrase: “could reasonably be expected to harm the interests of the municipality”
Which then leads to questions such as:
1. What is the municipality – likely the legal entity as represented by Council, but how about the citizens?
2. What are the specific interests of the municipality in this particular case? Interests vary and I think we ought to know what those interests are. I was under the impression that the Mayor stated before the meeting that names of parties who had expressed interest may come out. Is that true?
3. If voting records cannot be shared, then it seems that one of the harms Council may feel may come to the municipality is that people will know how their representatives act in our interest. That, in fact, it is harmful for us to know that.
Looks like a reasonable conclusion of how the vote went, DNHey.
The question that also needs to be answered is whether there was an offer to purchase made which required the decision or whether this was a simple question of whether they should sell the property.
We do not even know whether a sale of the property is now a dead issue, whether it was just a one deal matter and if someone else comes along next month with a better deal (do not assume that proponents or their employees do not talk amongst themselves; also do not assume that a new partnership could not come with a higher or different offer after finding out why it was rejected) that the discussion would be made once more, in camera, of course.
The problem with in camera meetings in which the public take a major interest since it is their interests are affected. That is completely different form an in camera meeting which may only affect a few parties such as the purchase of a piece of property in which the citizens really do not have an interest of the outcome.
========================================
BTW, the wording from the Mayor was: “weâve reviewed the staff report regarding land SALES of Pine Valley”. It was not “offers to purchase”, for instance. If the words were well chosen, they may be to keep the hole thing nebulous as to what the meeting was really about.
Then it goes on: “council has chosen to retain Pine Valley as a golf course for the citizens of Prince George.”
Nothing of how long ….. till the next offer? For 10 years? Pending a report which outlines the condition wich would be requred for a sale to be of interest to the City?
The whole thing is a smoke and mirror exercise. The real itention is not cear at all but it should be.
Time for the conversation to continue till Council concludes its duty to the citizens in this case.
We the “great unwashed” can only stand in stunned silence about this. If this “closed door session” business becomes the norm, then we all should start to worry.
If they were really looking to sell and maximize the revenue for the benefit for us poor taxpayers why wouldn’t they go through the change to the OCP and rezoning and then entertain offers, perhaps in an auction so that there is competitive bidding?
It would be a fairer way, more transparent and would also reduce any uncertainty for developers and therefore increasing the return to the city and its shareholders – us.
IMO, not only are they treating us like children by not telling us which way they voted on selling off this parkland, they are also making poor business decisions.
Thanks. I have commenced worrying. I’d start a revolution but I have to go to work tomorrow.
The decision to keep it secret just goes to show that the elected officials have no back bone.
If you voted yes or no just be prepared as elected officials to give reason to how and why you voted as you did.
I don’t golf but pay taxes and that property if ever sold can never be replaced.
It would become pavement and car lot which we need like a Hole In The Head
Meetings aside, a golf course is hardly a core City responsibility. How many core recommendations have we thrown out so far?
When we reject all of the items on the list because they all affect someone, somewhere, at some time, what do we do next?
People are right, the City neds to show backbone and start making some hard decisions (even though it might upset someone). I haven’t seen any sign of that so far.
Perfect, Skakun only vote to have the meeting public, he knew he had no chance of winning the vote, but damn he looks good, can’t say how he voted but has everyone thinking he voted against the sale, damn he looks good…..to the Skakun sheep at least
Isn’t democracy great?
good point bcracer.
i was a little disappointed with an item or two that was passed over.
what a lame list though, how much did we pay for it?
but what can you expect from accountants.
i think role of government is a real issue here, the disrespect of the covenant is concerning.
if revenue is needed, then selling real estate is hardly a viable long term solution.
myself, i am a farmer.
i saw there was a fellow out of vanderhoof selling hay to china. very wise. our compost is their gold.
if a considerate and sustainable harvest was implemented, how much are these caterpillars worth?
âConvincing everyone to eat insects will be a challenge, but there are many âfacelessâ and indirect ways of adding insect protein to our diet,â said Brian Fisher, curator of entomology for the California Academy of Sciences in San Francisco. âThe obvious starting point is not fried grasshoppers for lunch, but using insects to feed farmed fish, chickens, pigs and cows. But soon, I am convinced instead of that prized meal of lobster, we will all soon be wishing to dine on tasty insects.â
http://blogs.kqed.org/science/2013/05/17/un-to-world-how-about-eating-more-insects/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=un-to-world-how-about-eating-more-insects
whoops! i meant good point johnnybelt. :)
Since they refuse to tell us there votes ill be extrememly vocal about my votes next election.
“Meetings aside, a golf course is hardly a core City responsibility”
There are loads of things the city does that people would not consider core responsibilities. If they were to stop doing all of them, people in PG would probably faint with disbelief when they saw the result.
To me, this isn’t a core responsibility question, it’s a community planning, land use and transparency question.
Comments for this article are closed.