langleywatchdog…. and more!

The Surrey Truck Stop proposal has been in the local and regional news a lot lately. It is controversial to say the least with a number of serious concerns by the public related to this project pertaining to the Township of Langley. One of the serious concerns is related to the potential contamination of the Brookswood Aquifer, a source of drinking water to close to 20,000 Township of Langley residents (Brookswood / Fernridge South) plus many on the Surrey side of the border.

While the approval of this project lies entirely with Surrey Council members, there is a very well supported principle by neighboring Councils to take neighboring community concerns into account wherever possible. For this to happen in a transparent and public engaging way (Public Engagement, sound familiar?) a motion of Council in a Public Meeting to state their position is the ONLY solution to show support for their resident’s concerns. Private discussions behind closed doors with a neighboring Council members, does not cut it! Taxpayers expect much better!

In a recent news story in the Langley Times by Dan Ferguson the following disturbing comments were made by members of our Council –

Councilor Kim Richter proposed a Council Vote to condemn the project, but agreed to a postponement in light of the discussion with Surrey. – Langleywatchdog: In what is consistently familiar with Kim Richter, she wishes to be seen as the defender of the public, BUT she has NO follow through and NO finish on behalf of the residents she purports to support! Message to Kim Richter – Your act is tired and is being seen for what it is, an ACT! Stop playing politics and start being serious. Do the job! Put forward the motion!

Mayor Froese stated – “This isn’t the time for this (a vote on formal opposition to the proposed facility.)” Langleywatchdog:  Jack Froese is at least being consistent in that he is NOT standing up for residents and the community that he was elected to serve.

Councilor Angie Quaale stated – “I don’t think a motion to oppose something that we haven’t seen is a good idea.” Langleywatchdog:  Did she actually say that? After all of the input and information that this Council has either had or was available to them through presentation after presentation plus staff reports, this kind of comment coming from one of our councilors is inexcusable! Where has she been?

I am in receipt of the following letter to the editor which poses a few additional serious concerns.

Letter to the Editor

Surrey Truck Stop proposal – Mayor Froese miss-speaks: 

At the Township council meeting on Monday, November 2, Councilor Kim Richter put forward a motion to send an official letter of opposition to a truck parking and service center being proposed for South Surrey in the area of 16^th Avenue and 194^th Street.  During a lengthy discussion over the merits of such a motion, Mayor Froese said “this proposal is within the Special Study Area” and further, that “Surrey staff have not seen the application”. Both statements are incorrect, and while this might seem trivial, Mayor Froese was using them to support his position that the Township has plenty of time to make their position on the proposed facility known to Surrey Council.

The Special Study area (SSA) is a 600 acre parcel of land south of the Campbell Heights industrial park that is under review by Surrey staff for possible future uses. Currently the land is zoned Agricultural but is not within the provincial Agricultural Land Reserve.  Mayor Froese miss-spoke on two points.  First; On September 14^th, Surrey council unanimously approved a motion by Councilor Tom Gill that the 77 acre area proposed for the truck park be REMOVED from the 600 acre special study area so that the proposal could move forward “concurrently” with the land use planning process.  Second; Surrey staff AND at least three members of council: Councilors Gill, Vera LaFranc and Dave Woods (all members of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee) received a presentation by the proponents GG Metro Holdings in late July of this year, and held further discussions at their September 11^th TIC meeting, not 3 days before the council vote on excluding the proposal from the SSA.

Surrey’s proposal to put a truck parking and service facility at 16^th and 194^th is of major concern to the Township.  As stated in Councilor Richter’s motion, it could have a substantial negative impact on the Brookswood Aquifer (a major source of drinking water to South Langley), Agri-Tourism and species diversity including endangered species.  It deserves timely attention from Township Council.  When our Mayor explains the significance or details of what is (becoming) a very controversial proposal, he should be sure to get his facts straight.

Name withheld

Langley, BC

NOTE – I will accept Letters to the Editor on major issues of relevance. It will be up to those individuals whether their name is used. Given the record of the Township as to intimidation and bullying of those in opposition, I will protect the privacy of all involved.

 

RG

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe should be of significant concern and interest to residents of the Township of Langley.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and STAY ACTIVE!!!

Share this BLOG; FORWARD THIS POST TO YOUR FRIENDS, NEIGHBORS AND RELATIVES!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

Well, for anybody who didn’t watch the circus that was passing for Township of Langley Council tonight, Council members tried to disguise themselves as working on our collective behalf, it was an unmitigated joke! Kim Richter who keeps trying to pass herself off as somebody that cares asked a question that wasn’t even related to the issue and the entire Council sat and absorbed Mark Bakken’s absolute non-sensical response. Not one other Council member spoke up to question the ultimate result of their actions OR Mark Bakken, which is long overdue! Just pathetic!!! 

In what can only be described as an affront to the residents of the Township of Langley, your Township of Langley Council will be passing a resolution Monday night to execute a Memorandum of Understanding between the Township of Langley and the B.C. Agricultural Land Commission. At first glance it is full of motherhood statements, platitudes and warm and fuzzy dialogue, however a detailed read tells the real and a different story – it is nothing more than a back door agreement to provide a smoother path to remove properties out of the Agricultural Land Reserve under the guise of terms like  “Edge Planning” ”Adjustments to ALR Boundaries” “ALR / Urban Interface” and more. There is no doubt, by having this in place it will ease the application process! Your Council agreed to this behind closed doors in an in-camera meeting. For the record, decisions like this made in-camera must have a Public Council Resolution before taking effect which brings us to this Council Agenda item for Monday night. One Question among many – Is this the NEW plan by the B.C. Liberals to circumvent and skirt the ALR? Was there ANY involvement by our MLAs? Just asking the question?

OH they will tell you that it is just a clarification document of roles, purpose and responsibilities, you believe that I have a bridge to sell you!

The Agricultural Land Reserve (ALR) operates under provincial legislation, enforced by the Agricultural Land Commission (ALC). The rules and regulations are very strict surrounding this act and the protection of agricultural land. For a number of years, through a number of initiatives by a number of people, your Provincial Government and the Township of Langley has been suspect in their feeble attempt in support of the ALR. While there are many local examples to point to (landfill on agricultural land among many), look no further than their dismissal of Richard Bullock (Past Chair of the ALC) because he would not capitulate to the Provincial Liberals wishes in the decisions and reorganization of the ALC. Frank Leonard (long serving Mayor on Van. Island / defeated in the last municipal election) was appointed as the NEW ALC Chair, and now all of a sudden we have this back door attempt, hidden from the light of day. Remember this MOU was not being provided to the public as part of Monday night’s Council Agenda, it was only available if you asked for it.

Richard Bullock the previous ALC Chair, and I might add the best ALC Chair that was ever appointed, was the individual that sided with 98% of residents in the Township against the originally designed Mufford Crescent overpass which would have dissected the Hudsons Bay and Bella Vista Farms. This would have made obsolete 200 –300 acres of prime agricultural land. That original design was a product of Translink and this Provincial Government. It was a land deal, nothing more nothing less. You don’t think they were upset with me and our campaign to stop that injustice? Thanks to Richard Bullock, we won that fight!

Changing Provincial ALR legislation would create a firestorm of protest and the Provincial Liberals know that only too well. As mentioned above, what we are seeing in this initiative is nothing more than a back door method designed to get the changes they want out of the glare and spotlight of media and the public. After all it would be seen as a negotiated agreement between the ALC and the Municipality. Move along nothing happening here. This MOU would be referred to in every appropriate ALC exclusion application made by the municipality going forward. Yes, the same application process would be in effect, BUT this MOU would be front and center in every application.

For many reasons this is a damning indictment of those on this Council that support this attempt at intrusion. Supporting this MOU shows absolutely NO foresight on their part. This Memorandum of Understanding was developed and agreed to in July of this year, approved by Council in an in-camera meeting and put on Monday night’s agenda for execution by Council. As mentioned earlier, no attachment of the agreement was provided with the agenda; it had to be asked for and was provided late Friday afternoon. This is so damming by any measure. 1) What is the need for an MOU given the law through Provincial Legislation? 2) Why was this produced outside of the public eye? 3) Why was the MOU not provided as an attachment to the agenda (the public were not provided a copy of this MOU)? 4) Where is the transparency and PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT Jack? 5) Whose idea was this MOU, the Township or the ALC?

I have many questions with respect to the reason and/or need for this MOU? Starting from the premise that TOL’s history and reputation are suspect, which they are based on numerous cases, the following items / questions pertaining to this document support our stand against this MOU

• Why is there a need and/or reason for this MOU, who initiated it?
• Under Section 46 of the Act, a local government must ensure that its bylaws and plans are consistent…. The MOU states (2^nd whereas) “Whereas it is appropriate that the bylaws, regulations, orders, policies and other instruments of the TOL be consistent with the ACT where possible.” Two different meanings, Act states MUST be consistent, MOU states be consistent with the Act where possible.
• (3^rd whereas) “…consistency should further the interests of both the ALC and TOL…” Well the ACT states must be consistent, any watering down of that language to “be consistent where possible” weakens the ACT. Not legally but an MOU that has been agreed to by both parties serves the same purpose.
• (6^th whereas) This MOU states it is not legally binding BUT it is an intrusion and clouds the area of defined responsibility. If you have an MOU that is agreed to by both parties but conflicts with Provincial Legislation, what will any decision be based on. Remember the Act states “MUST be consistent” and the MOU states “consistent where possible.”

This MOU is 8 pages long and filled with, as mentioned earlier, motherhood statements, platitudes and warm and fuzzy dialogue. I have refrained from publishing the entire MOU.

1.15 COHESIVE URBAN AND SUBURBAN PRECINCTS (PAGE 6)

“Consideration of adjustments of the ALR boundary….” Plus the following 2 points below that title in my view that are an opening for more applications and excuses for applications for ALR exclusion. This MOU would be a document that would be pointed to as justification for all applications going forward.

• More rational ALR Boundaries – (Question – Rational in whose opinion?)
• Better means of protecting the ALR boundaries and communities with shorter, more defensible ALR/Urban edges. – (Question – Shorter, more defensible? In whose opinion?)

1.17 MITIGATION – Among the normal TOL agreement platitudes it contains the following of concern.

“It is recognized that adjustments to the ALR boundary may be necessary to achieve the goals and objectives of this instrument. The parties mutually understand that it is the TOLs intent to avoid the identification of ALR lands for other than agriculture, but where it is not possible the TOL may put forth proposals for agriculture enhancements at the time of TOL or land owner initiated applications made under the act.”

2.1 CREATE A DEFENSIBLE AND DURABLE URBAN / ALR EDGE –

“The TOL will work towards designating appropriate land uses, and other practices and strategic acquisition on both sides of the Urban / ALR edge to ensure provision of a distinct and permanent boundary between affected areas. Furthermore the Parties will work to consider integration of plans and possible adjustments to the OCP and ALR, as necessary, to ensure creation of a well-defined permanent edge for Urban communities within a permanent rural setting.”

This process of developing MOUs under the guise of developing a working agreement can, and I suggest WILL lead to an abuse of power. It IS the thin edge of the wedge. Its intent may not be the same for all parties who negotiated this agreement in good faith, unfortunately there is a serious potential for abuse which is why legislation and laws are developed to negate. For those who have a personal need to benefit, this is certainly a creative way to achieve that desired result.

RG

NOTE: This BLOG Post is the first written in or about 6 months. I have taken the liberty of taking a sabbatical over the past period of time, recharging the batteries. It hasn’t stopped me from keeping track of local, regional, and provincial issues which has motivated me to get back to informing and communicating to our residents.

I am working on a few posts at present that I believe should be of significant concern and interest to residents of the Township of Langley.

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and STAY ACTIVE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

The whole idea of a Mayor’s Standing Committee on Public Engagement was created in the Froese political back room before the last election (by those who are truly running him, the majority of Council and this municipality) in an orchestrated attempt to deflect the severe criticism (well deserved) being thrown his way over a variety of issues – What were they? Off the cuff they are the Brookswood/Fernridge OCP, Coulter Berry, Willoughby, Aldergrove, Landfills on ALR and refuting any public display or input of rejection by the taxpayer. Unfortunately for all of us, he was successful in selling his bill of goods, or put another way the public bought into drinking his Kool Aid! A sad reality but true!

In another display we have his idea of Public Engagement on the Translink Tax which the Mayor was campaigning so hard for. It was defeated by a large 74+% of Township voters. Had anyone of you ever been asked your opinion of the Translink Tax? Where was this Council?

Mayor’s Standing Committee on Public Engagement:

So from being in the middle of the Mayor’s Standing Committee on Public Engagement the community gets NO relief from bad decisions and ignoring the communities message of dissatisfaction in the last election. 7 months ago!!! The latest examples follow:

Question – to those who were politically active in the last election:  So you were convinced that politics would be done differently – Well are you happy now with who was elected?

I believe the worst is yet to come.

Now clearly I have not been shy about sharing my opinion of the Mayor’s idea / charade of a Standing Committee on Public Engagement from the outset. My opinion is based on knowledge gained through three years in the Mayor’s office. In one of this committee’s first action, they conducted a survey of other municipalities and cities to research their current public engagement process. The result was clear, there are no magic bullets, politics is a people business, and always will be. The tried and true long standing approved methods have stood the test of time – Public Hearings, Public Information Meetings, Community Drop Ins, Public Forums, Petitions, written, oral and video submissions and the TOL Website.

Message to Mayor and Council: The one and only thing that has been missing in the Township – is a Council that listens to the voters! I really think the Mayor’s true intention was to find a way to educate the taxpayer into his way of thinking. No Jack, the public are a very educated group that can come to their own conclusion through the communication vehicles that are in place.

It doesn’t require a Standing Committee, the hiring of a consultant at significant expense to go through a report writing process (which I might add have proven to reach VERY underwhelming conclusions) and months of meetings with a costly report to Council at the end of the exercise when all that was ever required was to LISTEN to your residents (not just developers) through all of the Public Engagement options allowed under the Community Charter!

Conclusions from Consultants Report – Before I get to a few of the latest prime examples (it has only been 7 months since the last election) of ignoring the public’s wishes and/or Council’s complete lack of consultation, here are a few of the Consultants Conclusions and my response –

Langley Township politicians and staff lost the trust of residents (Brookswood/Fernridge and Coulter Berry) – NO, you have to be kidding us?

Even though they (Council) acted properly. – WHAT? The only thing the Council of the day did correctly was to hold the required Public Hearings because they are mandated to by law! They didn’t listen, they didn’t consult!

The redevelopment of Willoughby into a high-density residential region cast a long shadow over the Brookswood/Fernridge planning process. – Well that is stating the obvious isn’t it. The shadow that was and still is cast (more on this later) is the approvals of bad development despite public outrage, end of story.

The consultant partly blames the media coverage (Langley Times). – On this he has a point in that for far too long the local media have been decidedly biased  (perceived as pro development, just view all of the display advertising in every issue), at the very least not utilizing their communication product to present more facts, more community opinion and more challenges of Mayor and Council.

BUT – Blaming the confusion on the Times using incomplete Community names or starting the Griffiths Plan before the Brookswood/Fernridge plan being interpreted as the Township considered the Community Plan being a fait accompli engendered mistrust of the Township. –  This conclusion by the consultant insults the intelligence of the community of Brookswood/Fernridge. This was all about a disjointed, poorly planned and a poorly thought out process which DID NOT embrace or involves the citizens of the community. Its results were pre-designed by the involved principles (developers) involved.

Summary of the Consultant’s Report – The report goes on and on with quite a bit of nothing more than filler but suffice to say this report was and is intended to look like they are doing something when in fact it is an exercise in futility. Anyone with an ounce of experience understand what is required and that is members of Council willing to stand out above the crowd on Council willing to stand up for what is right and continue the fight meeting after meeting issue by issue. Easy, NO, but it is what is and has been missing from Council for decades. A Council members simple NO vote is and never has been enough. It takes guts and determination in debate on Council to either sway others on Council to your way of thinking or at the very least to light a fire under the media and the electorate. A simple NO vote doesn’t cut it!

So how is this so-called NEW (as promised) Public Engagement working out (You know, listening to the public)? Remember it has only been 7 months, enough time to either show the public there will be change or there will be more of the same –

I can only guess based on a couple of the latest examples (that follow) that Mayor Froese didn’t expect to change his attitude at all, coming out of his committee sometime next year? But then again, whatever is added or subtracted from the process, listening to the public will always be the key ingredient missing, based on past and present practice. Words are cheap, actions are what matters!

Just a few of the latest examples –

Aldergrove Pool –

A review of my last BLOG Post reviews this issue in total, but in summary after years of PROMISING an indoor pool facility, Aldergrove receives an Outdoor Pool. This was probably one of the most insulting decisions to the residents of Aldergrove in decades.

Willoughby Development – 1^st and 2^nd Reading Last Monday –

In a stunning act of community neglect and rebuke, Mayor Froese and the majority of Council approved the following development at 208^th and 80^th (SE corner) – (A Poets Wynd Development)

Two Six-Storey Condos

Two Five-Storey Condos

Total of 286 apartments

Plus

Total of 138 Townhouse Units

The issues? Where do we start?

The approval of a separate and NEW Community Plan Amendment by-law at 1^st and 2^nd reading.

The approval of a separate and NEW Zoning Amendment by law at 1^st and 2^nd reading.

(Because both of the above are being passed in one process they only require one Public Hearing.)

1st and 2nd READING AND PUBLIC HEARING DURING THE SUMMER – This process of 1^st and 2^nd reading of BOTH by-laws (at one time) were initiated, passed and will go through a Public Hearing during the summer, prior to Council’s Summer break, when a vast majority of the public are on holidays. NOT ONE member of Council objected to this development being handled during the summer. Another example of VERY poor Public Engagement, which feeds into that cloud of mistrust citizens have with this Council. Clearly nothing has or will change.

SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT PARKING BY-LAW – This development is being guided by and incorporating a SERIOUSLY DEFICIENT PARKING BY-LAW requirement that continues unabated. Continuing with this development under the current parking by-law will devastate Willoughby.

NO NEW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT – Lack of planning for NEW SCHOOL DEVELOPMENT, no provincial support. Does everyone remember the infamous letter of interference from our two MLAs during the Municipal Election? How do you like the Province delivering on our needs so far?

NO COMMUNITY INPUT (A community consulting process promised during the election) into needed changes to the Neighborhood and OCP.

NO RECONSIDERATION OF DENSITY LEVELS being accepted by staff and Council. Our Mayor suggested in his debate that this area allows for up to twelve storeys. That is encouraging Jack.

NOTE: In typical fashion, in answer to a few Councilors concern over parking, there will be opportunity for changes down the road and that the first phase of the project will be the Townhouses. A Development Permit request for the Condos will come to Council when they are ready to proceed. Councilors Richter, Davis and Arnason voted against this project following what can only be described as a less than inspiring public debate (in one case NO debate)

To Council – Why would you #1 accept dealing with this project during the middle of the summer?, #2 Not deal with a motion from Council to refer this back to staff to impose a significant change to the parking by-law given this should be dealt with in September or later in any case? And #3 Given the so called interest in changing the Public Engagement process (can’t imagine what that would be) why would nobody on Council refer to this process?

OH and by the way Councilor Richter and Council – Yes an improvement in the Parking By-Law would mean a reduced density to the developer, as was answered by Mr. Saifi to a question from Councilor Richter. Message to Council – It is not your responsibility to deliver any specific density, it is your responsibility to act on behalf of the Public. A foreign concept I know to some members of Council.

Salmon River Uplands Development by Infinity Properties? – While this is only at the community information stage by the developer (Meeting scheduled for Wednesday July 15^th, 2015), if you believe this hasn’t been thoroughly discussed with the powers that be at the Hall I have a bridge to sell you in the Sahara. This is a further example of the stranglehold the development community and some major insiders have on this community. Stopping this kind of unbridled development will take a grass roots revolt from all areas of the Township of Langley. It will also take more than a simple unimpressive vote against by a couple of members of Council, it will take a no holes bard willingness to fight the wrong doing. Spare me the we must be nice routine!          

Conclusion –   

I am not sure what it will take to shock residents into action, but I will continue to raise these issues of importance hoping upon hope that there might be a public uprising. From everything I am hearing there is much more to come from friends of the majority of this Council. It is ultimately going to take nothing less than a very public backlash to change what has been happening in this Municipality for years. It will take some guts to stand up and be counted, are you in for it?

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

Well Aldergrove, you have been waiting for years for this, you have participated in dozens and dozens of public information sessions, formed local societies, held meetings, held dialogue sessions with elected officials and expressed in the strongest of terms your wishes – Once again in a well-orchestrated Council launch of their decision you have once again been ignored!

It has just been a short seven months since the last election, when virtually EVERY candidate for Mayor and Councilor came out in support of a long anticipated 50-metre indoor pool facility for Aldergrove. In reading some public comments about this announcement, there appears to be, by some, a willingness to accept or at the least offer a grudging and reluctant acceptance of this decision. Once again sitting back, accepting the backtracking of a promise, suggesting we at least got something…. This didn’t happen in Murrayville, Willoughby or Walnut Grove. To me, it is a sad commentary on Township of Langley politics on a number of fronts. I will outline those concerns below.

First – Public Engagement / Public Input – A lot of discussion and debate has taken place during the last two Municipal Elections over the wide-ranging issues surrounding public engagement and public input. As we all know very well, through a Pete McMartin column in the Vancouver Sun in the face of the Mayor’s decision over Coulter Berry in Fort Langley, Jack Froese was quoted that he doesn’t govern by petitions, nor the turn-out and input at Public Hearings. During the Mayors term 2011 – 2014, there were numerous irresponsible or certainly questionable votes as reflected in numerous Public Hearing Minutes. During the last Municipal Election, after listening to all of the heat over the decisions of Council, Mayor Froese promised to set up a Standing Committee on Public Engagement, which in fact he has done. PROBLEM – Mayor Froese has shown he has no interest in listening to the public? You don’t need a Public Engagement Committee to hear and listen to the public. Under the Community Charter you can hold Public Hearings, Public Input Opportunities, Public Meetings, written verbal and video Submissions from the Public and Public Petitions! Mayor Froese, despite this charade surrounding an attempt to make the public believe you and Council are listening, you have once again proven that this IS a charade in spades. You and Council HAVE NOT listened to residents! A decision has already been made and yet the Township will be holding public information sessions?

From a variety of sources attending the announcement on Wednesday night it was suggested by none other than Councilor Fox that – if the people of Aldergrove were not happy with the outdoor pool all they needed to do was raise the $10 million it would take to cover the pool, or in the alternative they could go to one of the indoor pools in the Township. This is vintage Charlie Fox, condescending, arrogant and much more! Charlie, don’t look now BUT the people of Aldergrove helped pay for the W.C. Blair and Walnut Grove Pools, are you going to pay for their bus fare (for the very limited bus service that is available) for so many young people of Aldergrove to get to W.C. Blair? All of this is VERY insulting!

Among numerous objections to this plan there is the current epidemic in skin Cancer (Malignant Melanoma). Why are we putting our population at risk with an outdoor pool?       

A reminder to all, during 2012 the Township held Public Meetings to look over two possible designs for a NEW INDOOR Pool, Ice Arena and Community Centre complex. This is what was wanted and what was planned!

Second – Sale of Township lands to support building this facility – Talk about mixed messages? Many of you will recall the issue a few years back about the sale of Township owned Glen Valley lands stating that the resulting revenue would go towards the Aldergrove facility. This, rightfully so, caused a significant firestorm of protest by the general public. Feeling the wrath of the public it was announced that NO, they had changed their mind and that this was not going to be a prerequisite to building the Aldergrove facility. Then, during the last election campaign during a tour of the existing facilities (or lack of) in Aldergrove, it was asked by a few candidates where the funds were currently from property sales in preparation for the Aldergrove facility. Councilor Fox who was on that tour stated that no, council had done away with that idea. In the Langley Advance article of June 18^th, 2015 it states that the Township has been raising funds from the sale of surplus lands? So the question has to be asked, did any funds from the sale of any lands go into the Capital Funds stated as already in place for this facility? Walnut Grove and Murrayville facilities were not built and funded this way.

So what is the truth, property sale revenue was or was not used to fund this facility – Yes or No! Don’t lie to the public!

The original estimated cost for the complete expected indoor facility was up to $34.8 million. The stated cost of the announced facility is $25.8 million. Is Aldergrove not worth an additional $10 million? Council approved a $7.5 million expansion of the LEC with NO public input, dialogue or discussion. A matter of fact they built the entire Langley Events Center at a cost upwards of $66 million in a similar fashion, and they can’t find $10 million?

Third – Statements by Mayor and/or staff have to be questioned!

Mayor Froese – “The pool is a compromise of sorts with some of the conflicting demands that have come to the Township of Langley.” Response – This so-called compromise is a pathetic attempt at satisfying a long ignored public!

Mayor Froese – “The lap pool will be outdoor, but it will be a year round pool.” Response – Users, I am sure everyone will enjoy swimming outdoors from October through April in the cold and rain – NOT!

TOL Gen. Mgr. Jason Winslade – “One of the goals of this space is to kind of replace the Aldergrove Lake Experience.” Response – What? This is a significant stretch to draw any comparison to what was lost in Aldergrove Lake.

TOL Gen. Mgr. Jason Winslade – “Outdoor Pools that run all year are becoming common.” Response – A quick review on-line will show the only constant with outdoor pools is they are being closed and at the very least THEY ARE NOT year round facilities!

Fourth – Council decision?

It is stated that this was a unanimous decision of Council. When was the vote held? Where was the vote held? – Open Meeting or In-Camera? To the best of our knowledge it was not on an open Council agenda so it had to be in-camera! If that is the case, only items concerning staff, legal or property are permitted in-camera. Was this an illegal vote?

Information for residents – The reasons for the limitation of what can be discussed in-camera is that Council Votes and/or any associated DEBATE should be public and transparent so the public and press have that information. Food for Thought? Is it possible, if Councilors Davis, Richter and Arnason voted for this proposal, that they did so being afraid of how it would be seen by the public if they voted against it? Message to Councilors, it takes guts to stand up for what is right, you have failed the people of Aldergrove.  

Fifth – Council Announcement?

It is interesting that the announcement event by Council only came about on the heels of a letter sent by the Aldergrove Pool Committee. In answer to that letter there was a quick reply by Councilor Fox saying to wait for the press release which instantly appeared announcing a public meeting in Aldergrove in a couple of days. (Held Wednesday June 17^th, 2015) Interesting timing? Summer coming? It is not lost that there was no public announcement of this Wednesday announcement either in our TOL facilities on the TOL website or in our local newspapers. Could we properly assume that this was a controlled event with supporters only receiving an invitation? I would bet on it!

Sixth – Proposed conceptual layout? Outdoor?

If you go by the layout as published in the Langley Advance, better than 3/4s of the water facility area is devoted to water park and slides which as stated will only be open spring and summer while there is very limited facility for general swimming, lessons and more.

An outdoor pool is nothing more than a brain dead idea trying to be sold as unique. Frankly it is nothing more than an insult to the intelligence to the people of Aldergrove.

Summary – This is nothing more or less than outrageous and yes the people of Aldergrove should be outraged. They deserve much better! There are a variety of innovative ways to finance this project, but it is clear that this Council is relying on staff’s recommendations. These recommendations from staff are either intuitively directed by some of their political masters, are poorly thought out by staff or as I have felt for years are a product of those who are masterfully directing this municipality and not accountable to the voter.

Where is the vision of our Mayor and Council? What is their vision for our municipality?

Where are our Council members who were so ready to make a promise during the election, but hiding in the weeds when the announcement is made? You should all be ashamed of yourselves. We expected much better!!!!!!!! Just another example of this Council’s idea of Public Engagement, as they say and it is true, we get the government we deserve!!!    

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

Every time you think you have heard it all, along comes our Premier who makes public statements about Translink that is completely and unequivocally false! How she can stay in office by showing herself to be so inept is mind boggling.

Have you heard her comments pertaining to the Transit / Translink plebiscite as picked up by CKNW the other day? Premier, I hate to be so frank but as they say if the shoe fits wear it – “Madame Premier, you have been either lying to us or you are too stupid to be running this Province”! Read 0n – Quotes from our Premier –

“And for those who think Translink itself is the problem” Clark says, “its up to Metro Vancouver mayors to fix it.” Premier, they can’t YOUR legislation does not permit it!

“Translink belongs to the mayors, and only the mayors, if there are problems that need to be addressed in Translink, the mayors can fix those because it is not a provincially run organization.” Premier, they can’t YOUR legislation does not permit it!

“As for criticism that Translink’s bad image and lack of accountability are undermining the Yes campaign” Clark says “that’s also the mayor’s problem”. Premier, they can’t fix it your legislation does not allow it!

Conclusion – “The definition of INSANITY is accepting a NEW Transit Tax to generate more funds to feed a fiscally irresponsible Translink, expecting a different Result!”

The full BLOG Post follows!!!

From the brain dead idea of holding a Plebiscite by Christy Clark, to the creation of a brand new tax, to the manufacturing of the question, to the creation of a region wide Capital Transportation Plan (Which is Nothing more than a WISH / VISION LIST) ….

I started to write this BLOG Post about four weeks ago, every time I got ready to publish it more news comes out, I would suggest information on incompetence comes out in the News. The latest, Ian Jarvis CEO stepping out BUT not stepping down as he is staying on in an advisory capacity with a NEW temp CEO coming in at a rate of $32,000 PER MONTH for six months? WHAT???? Selecting a fall guy does nothing to change the incompetent culture and governance structure of Translink!

HAVE WE ABSOLUTELY LOST OUR MIND?

Metro Vancouver Mayors, a number that are friends and former colleagues, (I don’t know how many will be after this BLOG Post?) have given into the well-known bullying tactics of the Provincial Government. This is the EASY decision, not the responsible decision – Trust Me! What would the responsible would be to stand firm against the referendum and to demand the immediate transformation / change of the current bankrupt governance model that is in place. IF the Provincial Government is not prepared to do so, let the province wear it publicly, it is not the responsibility of the Metro Mayors to do so. I say this based on my first-hand experience on how this Provincial Government operates when I was sitting at the table. (For the record I am a staunch Free Enterpriser, a review of my BIO will clear up any confusion in that area, so this is not a political attack but it is the truth and something that needs to be said.) This exercise is a sad joke perpetrated on an innocent and unsuspecting public who is only wanting value for their tax dollar.

Remember “The definition of insanity is continuing to do the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result”!    

A little history to start! The current Provincial Liberal Government is completely responsible for the inept, irresponsible, unaccountable and operationally bankrupt Translink Governance model currently in play. Until the governance model is changed NOTHING will change in Translink’s effectiveness, efficiency, accountability and/or responsibility to the communities they serve!

In December of 2009 after being elected Mayor of the Township of Langley I was appointed to the Transink Mayor’s Council. I am not sure anything could have prepared me for the reality of the politically dictated (Provincial) Governance Model of Translink. What was also so obvious at the time was that the Mayors were awakening to where the Provincial Government was leading them through the governance model they created. While I have written on this before consider the following (you can’t make this stuff up).

The Mayor’s Translink Council is responsible for funding approval, BUT their only choices they have by provincial legislation (up to the result of the pending plebiscite) is through gas tax (maxed out), fares (maxed out) and property tax (currently allows up to a 3% increase every year without approval of the Mayor’s Council). The Mayors Council has zero influence or input into Capital projects, region’s needs, regions priorities, or technology. (All of that is the responsibility of the Private Board) despite having the responsibility to approve funding.

OH yes the Mayor’s get to appoint members of the private board from a list of about six as selected by a separate Selection Committee. I can recall in my last year, I asked how many applicants we received and it was over 230. So, the reality is the Mayors are completely neutered in the management of Translink while taking the heat for all of its decisions and problems – Just like the Provincial Government planned and intended!

Welcome to the artfully constructed set up otherwise known as the B.C. Liberal Taxpayer Charade.

The first challenge we were confronted with was the need for $400 million as the region’s share to fund the Evergreen Line. Now to be clear, that commitment (years earlier) was made by the Mayor’s Council based on the Tri Cities and local groups calling for a Light Rail surface transit system, a fraction of the cost of elevated Sky Train. Unfortunately a message was sent and received – to receive approval of a NEW transit system, Skytrain was imposed on the region by the Federal and Provincial Governments of the day. The message to the Mayors – it was our way or the highway! An example of more irresponsible decision making off loaded onto the region (taxpayers) by the Province.

At the time of my election Kevin Falcon was the Minister of Transportation and was the one responsible for the firing of all Mayors on the Translink Board a year earlier. He is responsible for creating and imposing the NEW Private unelected and unaccountable Board of Directors onto Translink. Through the course of the next two and a half years (during my term), all members of the Mayors Translink Council fought off wide-spread intimidating efforts by the Provincial Government and the minister to impose an additional property tax increase (in addition to the 3% increase per year noted above). In search of a solution to find a source to fund our share for the Evergreen Line (The Provincial Government’s initiative) and the need for a change in the governance model (The Mayor’s initiative); the Mayor’s and the Province signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Premier Gordon Campbell which carried with it a mutual agreement to address the need for a change in the Governance Model. That promise and commitment has been broken! By the way, the initiative for that Memorandum of Understanding was strongly driven, negotiated and encouraged by Peter Fassbender, then Mayor of the City of Langley. Now Minister of Education for the Liberals, interesting! This is the same individual that oversaw the infamous RCMP contract with the government.

Source of needed funds? From the Province – Property Tax! From the Mayors – Carbon Tax!

So to today’s controversy(s)……

NOTE: In response to NDP questioning in Question Period, Transportation Minister Todd Stone stated that if the NDP had read the Translink legislation they would know that there are two Mayors on the Board and the Mayors are in charge of Translink Operations – Minister Stone YOU are WRONG, It appears you have not read your legislation!!  

The Reality is – It IS a Transink debate, it is a Translink plebiscite! While the Yes side of this Plebiscite debate wants to stay away from it being a debate on Translink, the reality is, that is exactly what we are voting on. Suggesting otherwise would be convenient, but IT IS NOT A FACT! Translink is inept, irresponsible and operationally bankrupt. How can anyone in their right mind suggest this isn’t about Translink? Where to start? From service levels, to non-cost effective technology, to the Compass Card financial boondoggle, to outrageous Transit Police Costs, to extravagant executive pay and perks (i.e. a $1,200 per month car allowance) and much much more, putting more hard earned tax dollars into this unaccountable money pit would be foolish. If we bend to their scare tactics today, we will be feeding this bottomless money pit with your tax dollars with no accountability.

To The Translink Question – Otherwise known as the “Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax” – What does it say? Here is how it will read!

Metro Vancouver

Transportation & Transit

Plebiscite

The region’s mayors have developed a Transportation and Transit Plan called “Regional Transportation Investments” – a Vision for Metro Vancouver. The Mayors Transportation and Transit Plan will:

Add Bus service and new B-Line rapid bus routes.

Increase service on Skytrain, Canada Line, Seabus and West Coast Express

Maintain and upgrade the region’s major needs

Build a new Patullo Bridge

Build rapid transit connecting Surrey Centre with Guildford, Newton and Langley

Extend the region’s cycling and pedestrian walkway networks.

A new Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax would be applied as a 0.5% sales tax on the majority of goods and services that are subject to the Provincial Sales Tax and are sold or delivered in the region.

Revenues would be dedicated to the Mayors’ Transportation and Transit Plan. Revenues and expenditures would be subject to annual independent audits and public reporting.

“Do you support a new 0.5% Metro Vancouver Congestion Improvement Tax, to be dedicated to the Mayor’s Transportation and Transit Plan?”    Yes ____ or No ____

Why I say to VOTE NO? Where do we start – much to consider?

Reasons for NO with respect to the Question –

There is NO guarantee to deliver any of the above, this, as stated is only a vision!

There are no costs attached to the vision items in the question? It is a dream at best!

This establishes a NEW tax, today it is 0.5%, what will it be 2 – 4 or 5 years from now? You can be sure there will be no plebiscite asking your approval for an increase!

Through the creation of this NEW significant slush fund, under the existing Governance Model there are NO controls over expenditure. Audits on revenue and expenditure are nothing more than an annual accounting and security that the funds were spent as identified. The decisions on what to spend it on are still up to management and the Private Unaccountable Board.

There is NO oversight / approval by elected members of the Mayor’s Council, the only people accountable to voters.

Surrey keeps talking about light rail when in fact the Province changed that to Rapid Transit? Another way of stating Skytrain, a proven unaffordable option. (Bombardier is in a serious financial  crisis / SNC Lavalin, their civil partner are facing major scrutiny for their business practices)

Reasons for NO with respect to Translink’s proven record of financial mismanagement –

My first-hand experience on the Mayor’s Council suggests there is a better than fair chance that the funds collected via this new tax will be eaten up through operations and not the projects designated. Mayors have NO control!

Compass Card debacle

Expending tax dollars for unused rental space

Outrageous salaries of Translink executives / highest in North America!

Outrageous Translink policing costs and salaries

A Translink Efficiency Review conducted in 2012 for the Translink Commission compared Translink’s performance to four Canadian transit peer systems. It shows revenue hours increased by 24.7 % while costs rose 50.7% between 2006 and 2010. Translink revenue passengers per kilometer were the lowest. The highest operating cost per revenue passenger, a third higher than the average cost and the highest administration cost as a percentage of revenue, (The above quoted from Gordon Clark Vancouver Sun)

Unpaid fares – An FOI request by the CTF (Canadian Taxpayers Federation) shows that 2,762,363 did not pay bus fares in 2013.

Reasons for NO with respect to Translink’s current make up, mandate and tax introduction!

The introduction of a region wide tax increase will unfairly punish businesses and taxpayers in Metro Vancouver, driving business into the Fraser Valley – Abbotsford West! That could be devastating to Langley and Surrey.

The Mayors of Metro have, prior to the latest bullying tactic by Christy Clark’s government, repeatedly rejected the idea of a referendum and have strongly requested a change in the governance model.

The Mayors of Metro have consistently requested the use of Carbon Tax dollars which by definition would be THE best use of those dollars.

What is Plan B if voters turn down this tax?

A clear message will have been sent to Metro Vancouver Mayors and the Province that you are demanding accountability for your tax dollars. Fix the Governance Structure of Translink and bring fiscal accountability to the operation first.

The Premier suggests Property Tax is the only other option – Well Premier, show me a politician that will support a property tax increase in the face of this rejection I will show you a fool!

Options – Change to an accountable Governance Model and look to the Carbon Tax Funding option.

Remember the dire messages given if the HST referendum was turned down? The sun came up the next morning and the message was delivered – it is time to send a new message!

Cost effective routes and technology should be a part of the solution, something Translink has refused to consider despite the FACTS being laid out before them. Check this video out which was prepared by the South of Fraser Community Rail Task Force and produced by Shaw Cable  https://langleywatchdog.com/topics/

In summary – About Trust in Translink’s ability to manage your tax dollars? Seriously consider the following –

You know, what has become very true in my years as an Alderman and in the Mayor’s office, the public have a serious case of misplaced TRUST in their elected representatives. In my experienced opinion this is the case at every level of government but for today let’s talk Municipal Government. During my three years in the Mayor’s office I tried in spades to bring accountability to our local government, much of that has been in the public domain during those three years. I won’t rehash them here other than to say all of what we tried to do was met with campaigns to discredit and assassinate the character of the writer with apparent support of a local biased media. So be it, but all of that won’t stop me from delivering my message through this BLOG which is supported through first-hand experience which backs up what I have to say!

My arguments above speak to the entire region, as to the Township of Langley, it would be irresponsible to vote anything but NO. While three Mayors in the region had the guts and intestinal fortitude to stand up against this irresponsible tax (Burnaby, West Vancouver and Maple Ridge), Where was Mayor Froese? He was doing the bidding for the Provincial Government supporting the YES side! As of last night’s Council meeting, the majority of Council has decided to stay silent on where they stand – Yes or NO! Don’t you think the public have the right to know how your elected representatives will vote? All of this despite a serious imbalance of services vs what we currently contribute in tax revenue (property and gas). It is shameful but not surprising!!! Message to Council – Hiding behind the “I have to hear and understand all sides of the debate” political statement is a reflection on your inability to do the job you were voted to do. It is a political cop out and will be seen for what it is!

I will say it again; it is long past due that taxpayers stand up to resist another tax that will only increase in the years ahead.

What should happen? I can’t resist offering my opinion based on my experience –

There should be One Transportation Provider from Whistler to Hope. Merge Translink and B.C. Transit into one revamped transportation entity that is open and accountable. (Two transit providers are wrong). It should be managed by a Board of Directors consisting of elected municipal leaders, Business Community and Provincial representation. All meetings to follow the rules of the Community Charter.

There should be One Regional District from Whistler to Hope (Not two as there is today) as well with a planning function (currently in place within Metro and FVRD) with staff representation in the NEW transportation entity. (How can we properly plan the lower mainland without close ties to transportation planning?)

Post Script – Was there Political Interference in our Township of Langley Election? Are you happy with OUR democratic process being hijacked? Was it? Was there financial gain? Many questions and much to consider! Go to January 29^th BLOG Post – You decide?

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

Under the guise of inviting all candidates in our last Municipal Election to go through a very suspect process to determine which candidates would form the Firefighter’s Endorsed Slate and be a recipient of a well-planned and paid for election campaign consisting of Paid For ads, 4 by 8 signs, Door Hanging Notices delivered door to door and membership letters; THE Firefighters presented their slate through the foregoing material supporting candidates who unanimously supported a contract agreement negotiated DURING the election period. How much did this contract cost? What was the real price we paid? Was there an agreement in place? The cost to us? The 2010 and 2011 contract –  3% per year plus the 2012 to 2019 contract – 2 ½ % per year all equates to a 26% COMPOUND WAGE INCREASE over 9 years! We don’t know the other cost parts of the agreements reached?     

UNTIL WE HAVE ANSWERS TO THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OUR RECENT MUNICIPAL ELECTION RESULT WILL BE IN QUESTION –

Have our Township of Langley Firefighters traded on their Community Good Will (otherwise known as Community Capital) to secure a financial benefit (contract agreement) in return for a Public Endorsement for and from a Newly elected Council? “Inducement” (Legislation’s word not mine), a word used in section 151 of the B.C. Local Government Act? (Dictionary definition of inducement is “incentive”)

Are any members of the current Council or their representatives, Senior Staff and/or any other third party acting for any of the foregoing been involved in negotiating an agreement, verbal or written with the Firefighters to secure a public endorsement campaign in exchange for a contract agreement(s)? “Inducement” (Legislation’s word not mine), a word used in section 151 of the B.C. Local Government Act? (Dictionary definition of inducement is “incentive”)

The Legality Question – It is clear that section 151 of the B.C. Local Government Act explicitly prohibits any form of “inducement” (outlined below). A review of the penalties to anyone found guilty of breaching this legislation, are very significant.

As I outlined in my recently published 2014 Election Post Mortem Part Two, this is a very disconcerting campaign activity that should be actively pursued through legal authorities. It should, at the very least, be subject to an investigation by the appropriate authorities. My understanding from a good source is that any resident of the Township of Langley may file a complaint with the RCMP with respect to this issue. I would also suggest that any complaint be laid through RCMP E Division, not the Langley Detachment given the potential of or perception of a conflict of interest.

There are those that want to bury their heads in the sand and suggest that this is just a coincidence or it somehow is anti-firefighter – Well, For The Record, nothing could be further from the truth! Lets deal with the facts – In this case, this legislation (laws) are in place to protect taxpayers and to protect our democracy, these laws are not made to be broken, regardless of who is responsible! Did this happen, only an investigation can tell.

There are many questions that need to be answered as are outlined in the body of my BLOG Post that follows, however there is another question that hasn’t has yet been broached, that of the Firefighters list of endorsed candidates? They threw away the previously (2011) endorsed candidates Ward and Dornan in favor of NEW candidates Quaale and Whitmarsh? If the process was true to itself a review of the answers provided by these two NEW endorsed candidates as well as that of the endorsed incumbents compared to that of the rest of the candidates leaves one to wonder on what basis was this decision made? None of this passes the smell test!

There appears to be clearly enough compelling supporting evidence or at the very least circumstantial evidence to secure a thorough and complete investigation. None of what I have and will present to the general public through this BLOG are sour grapes as some would suggest. I will stand very proud on my record of accomplishments and I have paid a very handsome price personally in many ways to fight the fight. I do not apologize. I will continue to present facts and issues and more than anything I am and will challenge residents to stand up and be counted. It is up to any one of you to grab the issue by the horns and to stand up and do something about it. By WHO and HOW our Municipality is being run is the issue, sitting back and doing nothing to correct it is not an answer.

Special Note: I think I have hit a nerve with some, given a couple of responses I have received, not the kind of language I would publish. To be clear, everyone knows that Council don’t negotiate contracts BUT they do have to approve contracts, in this case unanimously and in this case at a time when, on the Firefighters initiative, were determining who they would campaign for. Again it doesn’t pass the smell test, because it is all clearly about timing! Comparing this situation (a comprehensive campaign of ads, signs and door hangers) to other municipalities and cities is like comparing apples and oranges. We all know of the political activity of Firefighters, the Township Firefighters have just seriously crossed the line.       

As a reminder to readers I have repeated the details of this issue below from my previous post –                 

Township of Langley Firefighters Factor (Is this not Political Interference and more?) – It is my opinion and I believe that of the majority of residents that our firefighters are respected for the service that they provide our community. That aside, the question has to be asked, have firefighters seriously crossed the line with their very questionable partisan political activity? To be clear, while I don’t agree with their activity of public support for any specific candidate(s) I do respect their democratic right to do so. BUT, and it is a BIG BUT, in my opinion their actions appear to have crossed a significant line – read on! You be the judge?

It has become quite apparent over the years that Township of Langley Full Time Firefighters have made it a practice of using election campaigns in what appears to be an attempt to leverage their labor negotiations to benefit negotiation outcomes. It is one thing to come out in favor of a candidate or group of candidates; it is quite something else to appear to involve negotiating a contract in exchange for support? Is that what happened? Is there enough evidence to justify an investigation under Division 17 / Sections 151 (below) of the B.C. Local Government Act at the very least?

Please follow the time line below –

Candidate Questionnaire from IAFF 4550 – On or around the first of October 2014 the Township of Langley Fire Fighters Association IAFF 4550 distributed a package of 24 questions to members of Council. (I received a copy of these in confidence before I filed my nomination papers) After filing my nomination papers I received a different package of 16 Candidate Questions? We were asked to submit our answers that dealt with Public Safety and Firefighter issues in writing by noon October 17^th, 2014 (the day of the Firefighters All Candidates Meeting).

Objective of this process – It was made clear that at the conclusion of this process our firefighters would decide who they would publicly endorse in the election. That style of endorsement was on display during the 2011 election.

All Candidate Meeting Invitation – Township of Langley Fire Fighters Association IAFF 4550 invited ALL candidates to an open All Candidates Meeting at the Willoughby Hall Friday October 17^th, 2014 at 7:00 PM.

Questions asked of Candidates – During the All Candidates meeting, questions were drawn randomly from the questions and answers that were submitted in writing and were randomly asked of each candidate. NOTE – You will understand later why I ask this question – The only one of the 16 that was not asked of candidates during the meeting was the question on Labor Relations which was – “Despite a wave of freely-negotiated contracts for full-time firefighters in other B.C. Municipalities, Township of Langley firefighters have been working under an expired contract since 2009. Township of Langley firefighters believe that elected municipal leaders have a role to play in helping to ensure this matter is resolved in a fashion that is fair and equitable to all parties involved. Please describe your thoughts on this particular issue.” (At the conclusion of the meeting I found it highly unusual and interesting that this question would be absent from the questions asked of candidates.) I think the answer to that question lies in the following two Surprises! (A surprise to some maybe?)

Surprise Contract Agreement – With no contract since 2009 it was suddenly announced PRIOR to the end of October (October 27^th to be exact in middle of the election campaign) that a settlement had been reached for 3% increase per year for 2010 and 2011. (Aldergrove Star 12/18/14) The questions? – Who had conversations with whom to suddenly settle this agreement at such a fortuitous time? What was promised to whom and by whom? Who was in on the settlement? Was there a third party active in getting this deal done with a condition of public support the goal by either side? Question – Does this not equate to an “inducement”? See below.

Surprise Contract Agreement – On the heels of the above settlement for years 2010 and 2011, the two parties began to immediately go into negotiations for 2012 – 2019 (During the election campaign) which was settled Dec. 4^th for 2.5% per year plus other benefits. (Aldergrove Star 12/18/14) Question – Does this not equate to an “inducement”? See below.

NOTE – What makes all of this a possibility of and for an “inducement”? The Township of Langley Firefighters Association IAFF 4550 PUBLICLY provided their preferred slate of candidates with the following, which can only be described as – “Inducements” that could be to the benefit of both parties. Are ONE or BOTH parties guilty of a breach of Section 151?  

Firefighter paid for minimum half page full color Newspaper Ads listing all candidates they endorsed that they say supported their views of “Public Safety”! (I will add that all candidates if not a minimum of 95% of all candidates came out in full support of Firefighters.) Therefore their inference being that these are THE only candidates that support public safety is and was bogus. Could there be other reasons for their candidate preferences? – Contract negotiations?

Firefighters paid for and distributed large 4 ft. by 8 ft. full color signs posted throughout the Township of Langley by November 6^th listing all candidates that they say endorsed and supported their views of “Public Safety”. (I will add that all candidates if not a minimum of 95% of all candidates came out in full support of Firefighters.) Therefore their inference being that these are THE only candidates that support public safety is bogus. Could there be other reasons for their candidate preferences? – Contract negotiations? OH, and by the way – When were these signs painted and by whom? Just asking the question?

Firefighters paid and distributed Door hanging notices was distributed presumably by firefighters identifying their list of candidates with descriptions such as “Support Local Champions of Public Safety” and “ensure those elected to council agree that the safety of your family and your property is a priority”. (I will add that all candidates if not a minimum of 95% of all candidates came out in full support of Firefighters.) Therefore their inference being that these are THE only candidates that support public safety is bogus.

Direct Mail Letters that were sent to all Firefighters living in the Township of Langley requesting their support for their selected candidates as posted. It is suggested by Firefighters that there are about 1,200 – 1,400 firefighters living in the Township plus their family units. A fairly large voting block wouldn’t you say with the potential for significant voting affect. Extrapolate those numbers to include extended family and friends?

Council ratified the agreements – In one of their first acts after taking office these union contracts were ratified unanimously by this council.

I believe there is serious reason to be concerned with the possibility that Township of Langley Firefighters and/or Municipal Council members and/or Municipal Staff and/or Township Fire Dept. executive staff and/or a third party (in communication with one of the foregoing) could have seriously crossed the line and breached Section 151. Did they? This could only be determined through a thorough and comprehensive investigation.

What is that all about – Read carefully the following excerpt from the B.C. Local Government Act. It is Interesting that these sections along with a few other pertinent sections were included in the candidate Nomination Packages so ignorance of the law is NO excuse. What qualifies as an inducement? This is not rocket science!

Definition of Inducement – “That which induces; incentive. The act of inducing.”

Excerpts from the B. C. Local Government Act (below)

Division 17 — Election Offences

Vote buying

151  (1) In this section, “inducement” includes money, gift, valuable consideration, refreshment, entertainment, office, placement, employment and any other benefit of any kind.

(2) A person must not pay, give, lend or procure inducement for any of the following purposes:

(a) to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting;

(b) to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular candidate;

(c) to reward a person for having voted or refrained from voting as described in paragraph (a) or (b);

(d) to procure or induce a person to attempt to procure the election of a particular candidate, the defeat of a particular candidate or a particular result in an election;

(e) to procure or induce a person to attempt to procure the vote of an elector or the failure of an elector to vote.

(3) A person must not accept inducement

(a) to vote or refrain from voting,

(b) to vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular candidate, or

(c) as a reward for having voted or refrained from voting as described in paragraph (a) or (b).

(4) A person must not advance, pay or otherwise provide inducement, or cause inducement to be provided, knowing or with the intent that it is to be used for any of the acts prohibited by this section.

(5) A person must not offer, agree or promise to do anything otherwise prohibited by this section.

(6) A person prohibited from doing something by this section must not do the prohibited act directly, indirectly or by another person on behalf of the first person.

Prosecution of organizations and their directors and agents

153.1  (1) An act or thing done or omitted by an officer, director, employee or agent of an organization within the scope of the individual’s authority to act on behalf of the organization is deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted by the organization.

(2) If an organization commits an offence under this Part, an officer, director, employee or agent of the organization who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the offence commits the same offence, whether or not the organization is convicted of the offence.

(3) A prosecution for an offence under this Part may be brought against an unincorporated organization in the name of the organization and, for these purposes, an unincorporated organization is deemed to be a person.

Time limit for starting prosecution

153.2  The time limit for laying an information to commence a prosecution respecting an offence under this Part is one year after the date on which the act or omission that is alleged to constitute the offence occurred.

Penalties

154  (1) A person who contravenes section 151 or 152 is guilty of an offence and is liable to one or more of the following penalties:

(a) a fine of not more than $10 000;

(b) imprisonment for a term not longer than 2 years;

(c) disqualification from holding office in accordance with subsection (1.1) for a period of not longer than 7 years.

(d) [Repealed by 2014-19-71(a).]

(1.1) Disqualification under subsection (1) (c) is disqualification from holding office as follows:

(a) on a local government;

(b) on the council of the City of Vancouver or on the Park Board established under section 485 of the Vancouver Charter;

(c) as a trustee under the Islands Trust Act;

(d) as a trustee on a board of education, or as a regional trustee on a francophone education authority, under the School Act.

(2) A person or unincorporated organization who contravenes section 153 is guilty of an offence and is liable to one or both of the following penalties:

(a) a fine of not more than $5 000;

(b) imprisonment for a term not longer than one year.

(3) Any penalty under this Division is in addition to and not in place of any other penalty provided in this Part.

(4) A person or unincorporated organization is not guilty of an offence under this Part if the person or organization exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Conclusion – The effect the Firefighter’s Campaign had on Election 2014? Was their campaign only motivated by an inducement? Is that what stimulated their message? You decide? This apparent conflict or breach of this legislation is certainly in question, given the evidence available (above). It doesn’t pass the smell test and in my opinion certainly screams out for a public complaint being filed to investigate the issue at the very least. The Firefighters endorsed nine members of Council – EIGHT of them were elected.

Given the wording of the messages sent out by the Firefighters to residents and given the public’s trust of their firefighters I would strongly suggest this activity would have influenced / induced enough residents in their votes to have a significant effect on the final result, certainly for Councilor. The following reflects that considerable likelihood.

For the record there were FIVE candidates for Council that were no more than 465 votes below the last successful candidate, only one of which was endorsed by the firefighter slate. To put it into net political reality of how votes are affected by numbers check the following;

IF only 233 votes were taken away from the bottom three elected candidates (Firefighters recommended slate of candidate’s) and added to the top three unelected candidates you would have a different result in the outcome for Council!

Given the information above, given the widespread Firefighter campaign and it’s potential for widespread effect on the election outcome, does this not put the entire past election into question? Just asking?

This issue must be dealt with, otherwise our democratic process is susceptible to be hijacked by any significant special interest group and taxpayers will pay a significant price. As you will note above, the penalty, if found guilty, is severe, as it should be.

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

 

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

 

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

As I suggested in Part ONE of our Post-Mortem for Election 2014 there is much more to be concerned about. Lets talk about the Elephant in the Room – Serious Political Interference? Does the following pass the smell test? Not in my opinion – You decide!

The most disconcerting incident that occurred during the recent election campaign is detailed below. I find it very unfortunate that our otherwise well respected firefighters (full time) have put themselves into the middle of a very questionable quagmire. As a key, respected and integral part of our community our firefighters deserve community respect. Having said that, taxpayers deserve to be treated with respect as to their well fought for rights within our democratic process; I believe the following speaks for itself.  

Township of Langley Firefighters Factor (Is this not Political Interference and more?) – It is my opinion and I believe that of the majority of residents that our firefighters are respected for the service that they provide our community. That aside, the question has to be asked, have firefighters seriously crossed the line with their very questionable partisan political activity? To be clear, while I don’t agree with their activity of public support for any specific candidate(s) I do respect their democratic right to do so. BUT, and it is a BIG BUT, in my opinion their actions appear to have crossed a significant line – read on! You be the judge?

It has become quite apparent over the years that Township of Langley Full Time Firefighters have made it a practice of using election campaigns in what appears to be an attempt to leverage their labor negotiations to benefit negotiation outcomes. It is one thing to come out in favor of a candidate or group of candidates; it is quite something else to appear to involve negotiating a contract in exchange for support? Is that what happened? Is there enough evidence to justify an investigation under Division 17 / Sections 151 (below) of the B.C. Local Government Act at the very least?

Please follow the time line below –

Candidate Questionnaire from IAFF 4550 – On or around the first of October 2014 the Township of Langley Fire Fighters Association IAFF 4550 distributed a package of 24 questions to members of Council. (I received a copy of these in confidence before I filed my nomination papers) After filing my nomination papers I received a different package of 16 Candidate Questions? We were asked to submit our answers that dealt with Public Safety and Firefighter issues in writing by noon October 17^th, 2014 (the day of the Firefighters All Candidates Meeting).

Objective of this process – It was made clear that at the conclusion of this process our firefighters would decide who they would publicly endorse in the election. That style of endorsement was on display during the 2011 election.

All Candidate Meeting Invitation – Township of Langley Fire Fighters Association IAFF 4550 invited ALL candidates to an open All Candidates Meeting at the Willoughby Hall Friday October 17^th, 2014 at 7:00 PM.

Questions asked of Candidates – During the All Candidates meeting, questions were drawn randomly from the questions and answers that were submitted in writing and were randomly asked of each candidate. NOTE – You will understand later why I ask this question – The only one of the 16 that was not asked of candidates during the meeting was the question on Labor Relations which was – “Despite a wave of freely-negotiated contracts for full-time firefighters in other B.C. Municipalities, Township of Langley firefighters have been working under an expired contract since 2009. Township of Langley firefighters believe that elected municipal leaders have a role to play in helping to ensure this matter is resolved in a fashion that is fair and equitable to all parties involved. Please describe your thoughts on this particular issue.” (At the conclusion of the meeting I found it highly unusual and interesting that this question would be absent from the questions asked of candidates.) I think the answer to that question lies in the following two Surprises! (A surprise to some maybe?)

Surprise Contract Agreement – With no contract since 2009 it was suddenly announced PRIOR to the end of October (October 27^th to be exact in middle of the election campaign) that a settlement had been reached for 3% increase per year for 2010 and 2011. (Aldergrove Star 12/18/14) The questions? – Who had conversations with whom to suddenly settle this agreement at such a fortuitous time? What was promised to whom and by whom? Who was in on the settlement? Was there a third party active in getting this deal done with a condition of public support the goal by either side? Question – Does this not equate to an “inducement”? See below.

Surprise Contract Agreement – On the heels of the above settlement for years 2010 and 2011, the two parties began to immediately go into negotiations for 2012 – 2019 (During the election campaign) which was settled Dec. 4^th for 2.5% per year plus other benefits. (Aldergrove Star 12/18/14) Question – Does this not equate to an “inducement”? See below.

NOTE – What makes all of this a possibility of and for an “inducement”? The Township of Langley Firefighters Association IAFF 4550 PUBLICLY provided their preferred slate of candidates with the following, which can only be described as – “Inducements” that could be to the benefit of both parties. Are ONE or BOTH parties guilty of a breach of Section 151?   

Firefighter paid for minimum half page full color Newspaper Ads listing all candidates they endorsed that they say supported their views of “Public Safety”! (I will add that all candidates if not a minimum of 95% of all candidates came out in full support of Firefighters.) Therefore their inference being that these are THE only candidates that support public safety is and was bogus. Could there be other reasons for their candidate preferences? – Contract negotiations?

Firefighters paid for and distributed large 4 ft. by 8 ft. full color signs posted throughout the Township of Langley by November 6^th listing all candidates that they say endorsed and supported their views of “Public Safety”. (I will add that all candidates if not a minimum of 95% of all candidates came out in full support of Firefighters.) Therefore their inference being that these are THE only candidates that support public safety is and was bogus. Could there be other reasons for their candidate preferences? – Contract negotiations? OH, and by the way – When were these signs painted and by whom? Just asking the question?

Firefighters paid and distributed door hanging notices identifying their list of candidates with descriptions such as “Support Local Champions of Public Safety” and “ensure those elected to council agree that the safety of your family and your property is a priority”. (I will add that all candidates if not a minimum of 95% of all candidates came out in full support of Firefighters.) Therefore their inference being that these are THE only candidates that support public safety is and was bogus.

Direct Mail Letters that were sent to all Firefighters living in the Township of Langley requesting their support for their selected candidates as posted. It is suggested by Firefighters that there are about 1,200 – 1,400 firefighters living in the Township plus their family units. A fairly large voting block wouldn’t you say with the potential for significant voting affect. Extrapolate those numbers to include extended family and friends?

Council ratified the agreements – In one of their first acts after taking office these union contracts were ratified unanimously by this council.

I believe there is serious reason to be concerned with the possibility that Township of Langley Firefighters and/or Municipal Council members and/or Municipal Staff and/or Township Fire Dept. executive staff and/or a third party (in communication with one of the foregoing) could have seriously crossed the line and breached Section 151. Did they? This could only be determined through a thorough and comprehensive investigation.

What is that all about – Read carefully the following excerpt from the B.C. Local Government Act. It is Interesting that these sections along with a few other pertinent sections were included in the candidate Nomination Packages so ignorance of the law is NO excuse. What qualifies as an inducement? This is not rocket science!

Definition of Inducement – “That which induces; incentive. The act of inducing.”

Excerpts from the B. C. Local Government Act (below)

Division 17 — Election Offences

Vote buying

151  (1) In this section, “inducement” includes money, gift, valuable consideration, refreshment, entertainment, office, placement, employment and any other benefit of any kind.

(2) A person must not pay, give, lend or procure inducement for any of the following purposes:

(a) to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting;

(b) to induce a person to vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular candidate;

(c) to reward a person for having voted or refrained from voting as described in paragraph (a) or (b);

(d) to procure or induce a person to attempt to procure the election of a particular candidate, the defeat of a particular candidate or a particular result in an election;

(e) to procure or induce a person to attempt to procure the vote of an elector or the failure of an elector to vote.

(3) A person must not accept inducement

(a) to vote or refrain from voting,

(b) to vote or refrain from voting for or against a particular candidate, or

(c) as a reward for having voted or refrained from voting as described in paragraph (a) or (b).

(4) A person must not advance, pay or otherwise provide inducement, or cause inducement to be provided, knowing or with the intent that it is to be used for any of the acts prohibited by this section.

(5) A person must not offer, agree or promise to do anything otherwise prohibited by this section.

(6) A person prohibited from doing something by this section must not do the prohibited act directly, indirectly or by another person on behalf of the first person.

Prosecution of organizations and their directors and agents

153.1  (1) An act or thing done or omitted by an officer, director, employee or agent of an organization within the scope of the individual’s authority to act on behalf of the organization is deemed to be an act or thing done or omitted by the organization.

(2) If an organization commits an offence under this Part, an officer, director, employee or agent of the organization who authorizes, permits or acquiesces in the offence commits the same offence, whether or not the organization is convicted of the offence.

(3) A prosecution for an offence under this Part may be brought against an unincorporated organization in the name of the organization and, for these purposes, an unincorporated organization is deemed to be a person.

Time limit for starting prosecution

153.2  The time limit for laying an information to commence a prosecution respecting an offence under this Part is one year after the date on which the act or omission that is alleged to constitute the offence occurred.

Penalties

154  (1) A person who contravenes section 151 or 152 is guilty of an offence and is liable to one or more of the following penalties:

(a) a fine of not more than $10 000;

(b) imprisonment for a term not longer than 2 years;

(c) disqualification from holding office in accordance with subsection (1.1) for a period of not longer than 7 years.

(d) [Repealed by 2014-19-71(a).]

(1.1) Disqualification under subsection (1) (c) is disqualification from holding office as follows:

(a) on a local government;

(b) on the council of the City of Vancouver or on the Park Board established under section 485 of the Vancouver Charter;

(c) as a trustee under the Islands Trust Act;

(d) as a trustee on a board of education, or as a regional trustee on a francophone education authority, under the School Act.

(2) A person or unincorporated organization who contravenes section 153 is guilty of an offence and is liable to one or both of the following penalties:

(a) a fine of not more than $5 000;

(b) imprisonment for a term not longer than one year.

(3) Any penalty under this Division is in addition to and not in place of any other penalty provided in this Part.

(4) A person or unincorporated organization is not guilty of an offence under this Part if the person or organization exercised due diligence to prevent the commission of the offence.

Conclusion – The effect the Firefighter’s Campaign had on Election 2014? Was their campaign only motivated by an inducement? Is that what stimulated their message? You decide? This apparent conflict or breach of this legislation is certainly in question, given the evidence available (above). It doesn’t pass the smell test and in my opinion certainly screams out for a public complaint being filed to investigate the issue at the very least. The Firefighters endorsed nine members of Council – EIGHT of them were elected.

Given the wording of the messages sent out by the Firefighters to residents and given the public’s trust of their firefighters I would strongly suggest this activity would/could have influenced/induced enough residents in their votes to have a significant effect on the final result, certainly for Councilor. The following reflects that possibility.

For the record there were FIVE candidates for Council that were no more than 465 votes below the last successful candidate, only one of which was endorsed by the firefighter slate. To put it into net political reality of how votes are affected by numbers check the following;

IF only 233 votes were taken away from the bottom three elected candidates (Firefighters recommended slate of candidate’s) and added to the top three unelected candidates you would have a different result in the outcome for Council!

Given the information above, given the widespread Firefighter campaign and it’s potential for widespread effect on the election outcome, does this not put the entire past election into question? Just asking?

This issue must be dealt with, otherwise our democratic process is susceptible to be hijacked by any significant special interest group and taxpayers will pay a significant price. As you will note above, the penalty, if found guilty, is severe, as it should be.

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

 

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

 

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

A little introspection into my decisions leading up to Municipal Election 2014, the decisions we made during the campaign and the interfering activities of others? What should you as a resident of the Township of Langley be concerned about moving forward?

The Two years leading up to Election 2014 –

As I have said many times before, I had no intention of running for office again. Despite being encouraged by others to get involved immediately after the 2011 election, I declined after all I had just made the decision to retire. While I was retired, the concerned resident (and retired politician) in me could not help but follow the controversial actions (a short list follows) of the elected Mayor (Froese) and Council over three years.

Coulter Berry Fort Langley

Brookswood OCP

Trinity University District / Wall – Metro dispute (more on this in a later post)

Willoughby – Non-existent Community Planning.

Glen Valley Forest sell-off

Aldergrove Creekside Forest sell-off

Aldergrove Pool / Rec facility debacle

….and much much more!!

I felt at the very least, in the absence of any respectable and responsible local media in the Township, all of this demanded a voice of conscience and communication of and to Township residents, – thus the launch of www.langleywatchdog.com in January of 2013.

Who was going to run for Mayor and Council in 2014?

As has been very clear through my BLOG Posts over two years leading up to Election 2014 I have been promoting the fact that NO CHANGE on Council would occur until all opposition representing each of our communities would unite into one common voice. I was thrilled when I heard about the creation of the unelection campaign, an organization that in my opinion, after looking at their very professional website and content, looked to be an effective voice of opposition. In an August BLOG Post I volunteered the fact that I was contacted and helped a number of individuals frequently, who it turns out were obviously playing an active part in this movement. So to those that would suggest somehow that I denied helping…. NOT TRUE!

The first question – who was going to run for Councilor? What started out being a concern to many (lack of names coming forward) as it turned out we (taxpayers) had a choice of a number of incredibly solid and professional candidates who would have represented Township of Langley residents exceptionally well. We hope a number of them run in 2018!

The second question – who was going to run for Mayor? No, in all honesty, I initially had no interest in running. Retirement, farm, family and the feeling I had done my part, will do that to you. We had approached a few very solid potential and very electable candidates, unfortunately after a number of conversations and some thorough discussions, it was the wrong time for a variety of reasons, some personal, some business. There is no question, it is a big commitment. So after considerable discussion with past supporters as well as many who had been lobbying me to do so and most important family (it was not a popular decision with the family) I agreed to enter the race. There was no way I was going to sit back and watch this Mayor get in by acclamation given his disastrous record and actions of the previous three years. I would also add, anyone with an ounce of political savvy knows that a Municipal Election without a viable Mayor’s race is a non-event! So at the very least I am proud of the fact that we seriously added to the debate, the public discourse, the need for accountability and I believe we added substantially to the unexpected campaign cost to the current Mayor, his development based supporters and some members of the elected Council.

Satisfaction does come in different forms.

An interesting sidebar leading up to filing my Nomination Papers!

What will be obvious to some and questionable to others my strategy was, IF I was to run it had to be confidential and a surprise. This move was to prevent what happened in 2011, that is, the establishment having a legitimate third candidate enter the race, all designed to split the vote. (Remember – June of 2011 Froese announces his run for Mayor / September of 2011 Kositsky enters the race. This wasn’t by accident, it was initiated given the negative polling results on Froese they had been receiving at the time.)

My Financial Agent filed my notarized papers with Chief Election Officer Mr. Bob Wilson on or about 3:25PM on October 10, 2014 (remember close of nominations was 4:00PM). Isn’t the Chief Election Officer and his staff independent of Township Administration? By 4:30 I was made aware of an email (sent 5 minutes after my filing) from Bob Wilson, Chief Election Officer to Mark Bakken Township CAO stating “Rick has filed for Mayor”!

The question  – WHY would he inform Mark Bakken? Bakken’s staff position should not have allowed him any privilege of information in advance. And you ask why did I announce late?

It is also interesting that the email was forwarded by Mark Bakken prior to nominations close to ALL members of Council.

Was Bob Wilson acting on orders of Mark Bakken? Just asking? Was this appropriate? If you believe there was nothing wrong with this action, ask yourself the question, where does right start and wrong kick in? Where does undue influence start and stop? Is there any other influence? I am just asking the question?

In any event, this was my strategy and on balance that was the correct one.

The Campaign itself:

From a personal campaign point of view it came together well. Unfortunately there were a variety of incidents that certainly leave one questioning the politics of the Township of Langley; and who is really behind the engine that runs the political train? Is it much different than what happens in other Municipalities? – In my 35 years of political experience, Yes, it is and it is getting worse to the detriment of all residents. Unfortunately the vast majority of residents are just not aware of what is really going on and who is really in control!  To start:

Greater Langley Chamber of Commerce Mayor’s All Candidate Meeting – The Chamber of Commerce (otherwise known as the Establishment’s Political Farm Team) scheduled this All Candidates Meeting for the Tuesday immediately following close of nominations. It was clear that 90% or more of the tickets had been sold by Friday evening for what was clearly scheduled to be a Jack Froese love in. It was an interesting love-in to attend. Non-Partisan, not a chance!

The Coleman Factor (Is this not Political Interference?) – Now anyone that has read this blog from the start knows and understands why Mr. Coleman and I are and have been at odds (to put it mildly) over the past seven plus years. It was clear, going back to our first meeting in February of 2008, when in his words to me were “WE are OK with the job the Mayor is doing”, “WE are OK with the property deals” and “the CAO is a good friend of mine” that Rich Coleman and I were not and would not be on the same page. Unfortunately, some MLAs, take on an attitude of control over the Municipality/City they represent. They believe they are able to dictate what will or will not happen in the community they represent. Were there attempts to influence their Municipalities election outcome? You decide, just asking the question? www.langleywatchdog.com BLOG Posts are filled with reasons and rationale why this can only lead to unfair and undue influence by a member of a senior level of government. I am in fundamental disagreement with any kind of political interference by senior elected representatives. I believe this kind of influence is not healthy for good municipal governance. The Township of Langley has been governed for special interest groups for self-serving reasons for far too long and still is, much to it’s detriment.  So to the question – Should your MLA take an active partisan position in your Municipal Election? Is this what you elected your MLA to do? Remember your MLA once elected, represents ALL citizens in his/her constituency. That MLA is obligated by his/her position to work with whomever the residents of the respective municipality/City choose to elect. In all of this I am just posing the question? Are you going to continue to capitulate or are we going to finally develop a backbone and say no more?   Consider –

Rich Coleman Facebook – Rich Coleman Facebook campaign with messages of support for Jack Froese? Sent out and shared repeatedly throughout the campaign by his closest allies. Ask yourself the question, WHY would he care who was elected? Is this another “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours scenario?” Just asking the question? What could that be?

Rich Coleman ROBO Calls – An extensive recorded telephone campaign (his voice) asking residents to vote in support of Jack Froese. Ask yourself the question, WHY would he care who was elected? Is this another “you scratch my back I’ll scratch yours scenario?” Just asking the question? What could that be?

Rich Coleman / Mary Polak letter to Willoughby residents – One of the serious issues facing Willoughby residents is that of a shortage of School space meeting high growth needs. What exasperated everyone was the announcement out of the Ministry of Education just prior to the election campaign that the rules had changed – specifically that all School Districts must come up with 50% of the cost of NEW schools and they were NOT accepting any 5 Yr. Capital Plans for expansion. There is no other way but saying that the rules had changed just when Township residents needed help which was causing great concern for our Mayor. To the surprise of no one we then have a Mayor’s delegation meeting in Victoria with Minister and MLAs (you remember – Fassbender, Polak, Coleman are all old friends) announcing something but saying nothing. They had a great conversation, they will consider everything BUT there is no money available. On the heels of this non-announcement we have a letter from our two MLAs to residents of Willoughby making like we were on the verge of a solution. Now you don’t think this was an organized campaign of political speak do you – ie talk a lot and say nothing? By the way – Who paid for the letter? (Probably you and me as taxpayers)

More Political Interference from another source? – Stay Tuned for Part 2!

Election Day:

The Township of Langley used DS200 electronic voting (scanning) machines from ES&S for our 2014 elections. These machines were leased. It is surprising to many that there has been little to no challenges in the use of electronic voting machines (in general) in Canada given the very questionable performance issues that have been experienced in the U.S. and many other parts of the world. As some have noted, when you cast your ballot in the Township of Langley you do not expect a U.S. flag to appear on the screen before you which is what occurred in this election. In any event, the DS200 machines offer a paper ballot scanning system which provides a back-up of paper ballots in the case of a problem or a need to check. Reading material on-line about past incidents in the U.S. cannot help but give serious concern about the security of our election outcomes.

A paper trail is all well and good, unfortunately without a legislated opportunity to check (A Random manual count in 2 regular polls), a paper trail serves no useful purpose.

Please go into the following Computerworld on-line site to judge for yourself.

Go into the following link and you will understand why voters should hold some serious concern!

www.computerworld.com/article/2501005/technology-law-regulation/e-voting-machine-freezes–misreads-votes–u-s–agency-says.html

There were three incidents of concern relating to voting day and the Voting Machines –

• The communication link between a large Aldergrove Poll and the Municipal Hall did not work and the memory stick had to be transported physically to the Municipal Hall for final count. (We understand there was no security nor witness to this physical transfer.)
• There was an electrical problem at the WIX Brown Poll for a few hours in the morning of election day which required a technician. Is it possible this vote and or the machine count was affected before they got it up and running properly?
• The communication link between a large Brookswood Poll and the Municipal Hall did not work and the memory stick had to be transported physically to the Municipal Hall for final count. (We understand there was no security nor witness to this physical transfer.)

An EASY solution re Voting Machines prior to the next election – Council should bring forward their by-laws covering electronic voting with an amendment that stipulates TWO regular polls (not advance or special) be randomly selected(through an independent selection process) and go through a manual recount. This should be mandatory in every election.   

Election Result:

The changes brought about in the final election result, was the result of the coming together of all communities in a focused way. It was absolutely instrumental in the defeat of three Councilors and the election of Petrina Arnason. Unfortunately I can’t help but add we elected one who is very closely affiliated with the current Mayor and another who is employed by Trinity Western University which has numerous partnerships and/or relationships with the Township of Langley. These two will require and will receive some very close scrutiny over the next four years.

Promises are made during an election, lets make sure that promises are kept! Having said that a review of most platforms show they are vague, and that is by political design. They are filled with platitudes that frankly can make you warm and fuzzy but are open to widespread interpretation. There lies the problem with politics! We made some good strides in Election 2014, lets improve on that for election 2018!

Post-Mortem Part TWO?

There was another very disturbing occurrence that happened during Campaign 2014. Stay tuned for the detail on that part of the Post Mortem! Coming in three days!

RG

Stay tuned for discussion of top of mind topics that directly affect us in the Township of Langley and our region to be published in the months ahead and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed, stay involved and VOTE!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives!

To comment on this post – Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.

On behalf of the Green Family we would like to extend our sincerest wishes to ALL of our readers for a VERY Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and Prosperous New Year! To the election – No matter how many times one goes through an election (and I have gone through too many) as a candidate or manager it takes time to decompress and organize your thoughts post-election!

I apologize for the delay in getting this Post out, just a lot to think about. So after much thought and consideration, we are back, refreshed and loaded for bear!! I want to take this opportunity to express our heartfelt and sincere thanks to all of those that worked so hard on our behalf in the Municipal Election just passed. Your support assisted in bringing some conscience to the issues affecting the Township of Langley. Those issues have not changed, so despite the result (although we have to be pleased with the defeat of three members of the past Council) we have to recommit our energy to hold members of Council accountable for their actions!

So as I said, after much thought (recognizing the number of hours needed on my part to devote to research and writing) www.langleywatchdog.com will be back, energized more than ever! The actions of this Council, our Provincial Government and our Federal Government, as they affect our Township of Langley, will determine what will be written in this space in an effort to communicate to and educating of our residents pro OR con! As always, we will be utilizing my own personal knowledge and experience from the inside as well as that of numerous sources, Freedom of Information, those elected as well as that of staff past and present. Our sources will always remain confidential, but trust me our information will be factual and the basis of any of our propositions worthy of serious consideration.

So what’s ahead? Here is a bit of a teaser list of hot button issues we are working on at present –

UPDATE – Our first will start January 2nd 9th (or before) 2015. In no particular order – WHAT IS COMING the first of the New Year?

Post-Election – Post Mortem – So what are some of the behind the scene stories that occurred leading up to and those that occurred during Campaign 2014? For the record none of this is sour grapes despite the fact some will accuse me of just that. My message to those is the same as before, if you disagree with me, great, but do so arguing the facts not fictional hyperbole! What I lay out in this BLOG are the facts, if you choose to ignore, dismiss or otherwise criticize them out of hand as opposed to possibly learning from the information provided, so be it! There are some interesting actions done during this election campaign that in my opinion crosses the line into being unethical, immoral, illegal and/or just fundamentally wrong more than anything else. You can decide for yourself. IF much of what has happened during election campaigns over the past couple of decades in the Township continues in the years ahead, taxpayers should be very concerned about their democracy being hijacked in the interest of a special few. Some interesting content that I am willing to bet many do not know or haven’t considered the serious implications of will be profiled.

Proposed Referendum on the Translink Tax (Sorry, that is what it is!) and Transit as it affects the Township – I have already taken a strong stand on the whole issue / idea of a Referendum within Metro Vancouver, and for good reason. Having said that, now that we know the question and the proposal there is much more to be said and considered BEFORE we vote! From all early reports we read that those on the YES side are saying this is NOT a Translink Vote BUT a Transit Vote! Nothing could be further from the truth. Stay tuned.

Sale of Taxpayer Owned assets to fund future Capital Projects / Aldergrove Pool?– During the recent election campaign a hot button issue was the Aldergrove Pool project and rightfully so. This project has been promised going back a number years during every election. There is much to be said about this proposal, including size, concept, services, location as well as misinformation coming out of Council which has fed its desire to delay the project as much as possible. Council is directly responsible! Stay tuned!

Mayors Red Herring – Task Force on Public Engagement – You know politics is an interesting endeavor. You can run on a meaningful platform of issues that forms and meets your commitment made during an election; or there are those who’s want to be re-elected trumps their commitment to the promises made to the public during the election campaign itself. A Task Force on Public Engagement – WHAT? How about utilizing the legislated resources currently available within the Community Charter? Public Meetings? – Public Hearings? – Petitions? – And Public Input? OH Yes and the key ingredient in all of this is “Listening” to the taxpayer! What a foreign concept.

Willoughby – Development – Density – Parking and Poor Community Planning! Unfortunately the election did not produce the necessary results to drive home some common sense into our Mayor and the majority of the elected Council. The weight of many of our communities will now rest on the shoulders of a few on Council. While I know and understand that residents like to see our Council get along, the questions has to be asked – At what Price? Take it from me, being a part of a minority voice on Council, carrying the banner and fighting for what is right IS NOT easy and comes at a price; however not taking up that fight and just voting against something frankly doesn’t cut it. We can only hope that our three member minority will have the strength to stand up for what they ran on during the election!

Once again…. Merry Christmas and a Healthy, Happy and Prosperous New Year!!!!!!!!!!!! See you in 2015!

RG

Stay tuned for the above topics to be published the first of 2015 and much more….!

Protect your Democratic Rights – Protect your NEIGHBORS Democratic Rights – stay informed and stay involved!!!

Share this BLOG; forward it to your friends, neighbors and relatives! To comment on this post –

Click on this Post, top left hand corner under recent posts.