Does Prince George Need A Municipal Conflict Of Interest Commissioner?

Thursday, December 06, 2007 03:52 AM

Former City Councillor Dan Rogers says there is a need for more accountability in municipal government, "As someone who has been involved in local government for more than a decade, I have observed that while we are very quick to say we are the most open and accountable form of government , the reality is there isn’t a strong mechanism in place to ensure that’s the case."

Speaking to the issue raised by residents of the Miller addition as to whether there was a conflict by some members of Council who voted on the re-zoning of the old Back Packer Motel to make way for a new home for the homeless , Rogers says , "The concept of having a third party, along the same lines as the conflict of Interest Commissioner that is in place with other levels of government ,would be of great assistance in ensuring accountability and for clearing the air when false accusations are made."

ROgers says the trouble with the system as it stands, is that it's simply a matter of he said-she said, "There is no way to either prove there is a conflict of interest or conversely, protect the reputation of someone falsely accused."

Rogers says while the Court is an option, it isn’t a realistic option for either those who make the accusations or those falsely accused.

Such a Commissioner says Rogers "Would make local government more transparent and accountable while protecting the reputation of those that run for local office."

Rogers suggests the responsibilities of such a Commissioner would include not only Prince George City Hall, but Regional District, and the Communities under that umbrella.

Previous Story - Next Story

Email |

Print |

Facebook |

Twitter |

Digg |

Del.icio.us

Posted on Thursday, December 06, 2007 03:52 AM in News by 250 News

Return to Home

Comments

Posted by: Jim13135 on December 6 2007 6:45 AM

Wow, another proposed waste of taxpayers money. Since this city was incorporated our councillors have managed to defend themselves without hiring their own watch-dog....

Posted by: Buzz on December 6 2007 6:53 AM

"Do we need a Municipal Conflict of Interest Officer?"

NO.

Posted by: Chadermando on December 6 2007 7:05 AM

Sure I think we should look at this. My suggestion would be to group together with a number of other regional districts and share the cost of a single Municipal Conflict of Interest Officer. Kind of like a co-op insurance policy against corruption and favoritism in local government.

Posted by: BCRacer on December 6 2007 7:18 AM

In my humble opinion this sounds like a, lets make a job for someones friend.
I might be wrong, but if this goes through something really stinks.

Posted by: owl on December 6 2007 7:18 AM

I suggest that BC create a Municipal Board. That is their role in other provinces such as Ontario and Quebec. I really do not understand why BC does not have such an obvious and needed avenue of appeal.

http://www.omb.gov.on.ca/MunicipalRole/Mandate.htm

from that site:

The OMB is an independent adjudicative tribunal subject to the rules of natural justice and the requirements of the Statutory Powers Procedures Act.

The OMB hears applications and appeals on:

Land use planning under the Planning Act and other legislation
Financial issues related to development charges, land expropriation, municipal finance and other legislated financial areas
Municipal issues as legislated under the OMB Act and other legislation
Other issues assigned to the Board by Provincial Statute (note: the OMB is referenced in over 70 public statutes).

--------------------------
There was a case in Hull several decades ago where the Council rezoned a neighbourhood park to allow for a high rise residential building.

The builder went ahead to build, the citizens went ot the Quebec Municipal Board, the Board overturned Council's decision, and the developer was forced to tear down the building.

Posted by: diplomat on December 6 2007 7:59 AM

"Does Prince George Need A Municipal Conflict Of Interest Commissioner?"

No. It needs a municipal election, the sooner the better.

City Hall would also benefit from some new hires with imagination and drive.

Things appear to be in a rut, for a long time.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on December 6 2007 8:15 AM

Dan says .."As someone who has been involved in local government for more than a decade,.." Bet we see Mr Indecision back again. Looks like Dan's all ready testing the waters and looking to bump up the profile a little.

As much as I hate more government, the (Owl) Municipal Board is overdue! Some of the stuff the councillors get talked into, or talk themselves into, is really wild. The Federal and Provincial governments have less effect on our daily lives and investments, and there is no appeal to anything!

Some city councils get right into micro management and some cities council are made up of people that let the market sort it out. There is no consistency through out the province. If there is a bunch of socialist councilors elected they have no restrictions on their appetite for public money and regulatory power, and if entrepreneurs are elected they raid neighbouring cities for their jobs.

It is overdue for BC to make it possible to appeal council decisions! City councils have had free rein for far too long.

Posted by: Bridge on December 6 2007 9:28 AM

"Bet we see Mr Indecision back again. Looks like Dan's all ready testing the waters and looking to bump up the profile a little."

Yama your going the wrong way. On one hand we have a council that makes the decisions and tells us where to go. I think Mr Indecision has the right grasp on what we need at city hall. It does show that he is listening to what the community needs. It may look like indecision but I think he has his ear to the ground.

I hope that Dan Rodgers runs again for Mayor. We need to get rid of the clown that now sits in the Mayors chair.

Cheers

Posted by: bohemian on December 6 2007 9:43 AM

diplomat said:

"No. It needs a municipal election, the sooner the better."

Unfortunately, the electorate prove, election after election, that they want the same-old, same-old. The best-known win, not the best and brightest.

The famous idiot with 5000 votes beats the unknown genius with 2000 votes. The problem is we've been electing the people that get the most votes.

We don't need a conflict of interest commissioner, but we DO need someone that plays a similar role to the Auditor General - someone to ask the "why are we doing that" and "why is it costing so much" questions - we certainly know the counsilors aren't.

Those on council insist they "work together" and "cooperate" - and by that they mean "I'll vote for your bad idea if you vote for my bad idea."

It's a one-party system where no councilor need fear being raked over the coals by the "opposition." All they need to do is circle the wagons from time to time and let things like the new social housing blow over.

Posted by: Harbinger on December 6 2007 12:43 PM

What does the job pay? Do you get yer own office? Secretary? I type lousy. I have a suit. I feel qualified. I can read. Does it pay around $80 thousand? I'd be the best conflict officer this town has ever seen. The first one. Ha ha ha

Posted by: Foo738 on December 6 2007 6:15 PM

Now Yama you really do have to start behaving yourself. When you say "." Bet we see Mr Indecision back again." referring to Dan Rogers you are way back on a slur that was cast at the last election to make sure that Dan didn't get elected.

Unfair and dirty pool. He was one of the Councillors that was very decisive and didn't just try to please the voters to get elected.

I have a lot of respect for Dan, we lost a good sincere man there and a gentleman.

Posted by: YamaDooPolCat on December 6 2007 10:50 PM

Ooooh .. Foo738. Dan has one fan anyway.

The Mr Indecision moniker stuck for good reason. Dan could talk until people were wondering what the heck the subject was. And then Dan would talk some more until it was clear there was no decision that was perfect and the subject needed to be given careful study and until all the facts were know and the implications of the decision on the ....Blah blab on and on... and on..

Yawn.

Posted by: Foo738 on December 7 2007 12:03 PM

Well Yama maybe you know more than I do but there was sure no blathering on the Cameron Street bridge and he knew when he took a stand that it could cost him the election, that took courage and deciveness (and he was right, a huge mistake and a waste of taxpayers money.)

I see that I am not the only fan as there is another on this page.

Posted by: bitter on December 8 2007 9:40 PM

Who owned the poperty the Backpacker motel was sitting on ,befor it was bought by B.C. Houseing ?? was it the City of P.G. if so that would be a BIG conflict of interest would it not ?? this is just not about houseing the Homeless or people with no fixed address its about changeing the Zoneing of the whole area. Is there a smart Lawyer out there that could put some heat on this project?? and slow it down. I also like Dan Rodgers but I wonder how he would have voted on this Issue.