Last month the City of North Vancouver Council narrowly voted to change its representation on Metro Vancouver boards and committees.
The original December 7 resolution [video] addressed Board and Committee appointments. Mayor Mussatto was to be replaced with Councillor Clark on the Sewerage and Drainage Board as well as the Water District Board. Clark was to continue at the Labour Relations Bureau and added to the Waste Management Committee. Councillor Heywood was to go to the Finance Committee, and Fearnley to the Water Committee. At the time Mayor Mussatto pointed out that the the committee appointments were made solely by the Metro Vancouver Chair, not by Council resolution. Councillor Keating said that he had no problem leaving his committee posts and, on December 14, that he had been appointed by direct request of Ms Jackson, not because of any intervention from Mayor Mussatto.
A number of back-and-forth letters between the Council and Metro Vancouver followed, with Metro Vancouver pointing out that splitting the board appointments was illegal and that only one alternate Board director could be appointed.
Metro's 2010 committee appointments were announced today. With the exception of the renewal of Clark's appointment to the Labour Bureau, it appears that Council's resolutions had no effect. Mayor Mussatto and Councillor Keating continue to be the City's representatives on all the committees.
The whole episode, as well as recent incivility at the Council table, does not reflect well upon the City. There are some obvious compromises to be struck -- i.e. naming a single alternate director -- that thus far seem to be unpursued.
Thursday, January 21, 2010
CNV Council fails to change Metro Vancouver appointments
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
19 opinions/comments:
The incivility will continue. It is well known that there are factions on council that cannot stand each other. I'd wager that it would be near impossible for these people to even be in the same room with one another outside of their council duties.
Combine their hostility for each other and the massive egos involved, it's a wonder they can get anything done at all.
They're all going to need to start smartening up before the public will take any of them seriously. No wonder people don't vote.
Ah, John,
Didn't you notice when the council agreed to accept and file the Metro report? The camera was right on Fearnley as he surrendered.
The right wing four could have agreed to one rep, Clark or Fearnley, but they could not put their individual ambitions aside. Typical right wingers. Keating stays as the rep.
Don't you get it?
Jensen is a pawn for Mussatto's NDP crew.
Who do you think got him an appointment to an importment City committee?
Keating is not the alternate director, but he has been reappointed by the Chair to two Metro Committees. Lois Jackson had the opportunity to be guided by the Council's recommendations,but chose instead to ignore them completely. The only option left is to replace Mussatto as director and name Clark and Fearnley as Director and Alternate.
Disappointing to say the least, CK must be rubbing his hands with glee
It's not much better at the DNV. These councillors are so basically on the same page that most issues are swept under the rug. Note the development in Seymour (Blueridge) that was not debated at all went to a consent agenda item and is being built without a public hearing.
Prove me wrong!
Also, lately the DNV Council agenda is not being published in the North Shore News.
There are many people (voters) who do not have access or knowledge of computers. It is a fact that the elderly vote more than the younger folks.
Wendy, if you're referring to Riverside Terrace, perhaps it was because people are generally in favour of the development. It's you who seems to have a problem with it, and you don't even live out there. As we used to say when we were kids, mind your own beeswax.
And FYI, I know lots of people who you would consider seniors who are as computer savvy as the rest of us. Sure there is complacency, but maybe -- just maybe -- not many others believe as you do that the sky is falling.
Barry - you should take your non-north vancouver stuff to another blog that is dedicated to BC or federal material but you keep on insisting on deluging us with your party's propaganda.
Wendy - you'll just ill, claiming to being "set up" by the North Vancouver police, like claiming Don Bell was threatening your cat.
Get Help!
Wendy, there was a public hearing on that development. It want through the steps as required by the DNV. What more is required (by law, not by you)?
Anon 8:55
It was not advertised. Saying it was on dnv.org is not good enough. It should have been advertised in the local papers. And if it was, it was buried.
You stated as a fact that it was not advertised, now you're saying "if it was".
You just make stuff to fit your rant.
Anyway, they spent too much on expensive advertising.
Wendy by law the district sends out a notice of a public hearing directly to property owners within a set distance of a proposed develpment as they are the people who will be most impacted. Happens with every single application and hearing. Sorry but the Dist. and most of the public do not feel someone living in Lynn Valley is directly impacted by what happens in Blueridge so no need to waste our money telling them directly about it.
Sorry Wendy, but by law any development requiring rezoning must be posted. There would have been district notices posted in the newspaper as well as the property would have been posted with the required signage. And as anon 7:20 PM said, notices are delivered to all of the neighboring properties within a specified distance of the development. To say there was no advertising shows how little you know about the processes of local government with respect to development. Best stick to your job with Elmer the Safety Elephant.
Wendy is ranting about the development at Apex and the Parkway, not the Riverside Terrace proposal.
The Riverside Terrace proposal hasn't gone to the council yet. But I think you are overstating the community support for it. Most people don't care, but there is a lot of opposition from the neighbours.
The project Wendy is complaining about has had its approval for a long time already. That project was rejected by the council the first time and was reintroduced a year and a half later. It was properly advertised including through the newspaper, at the site, to the neighbours, adn through the community association.
Nice talk. Prove to me that DNV Council meeting agendas have been published recenty in the North Shore News.
The agendas were always published right next to the "District Dialogue."
They are not there!
Is the District obligated to publish their council agenda in the local paper?
No. It's something they do to genereate interest.
Nope re agenda. The cost of putting it in the paper is very very high when one looks at the amount of intreast it generates - ie how many people show up for a council meeting or write in on an agenda item per month. Often no one!
Bottom line the agenda is easly obtained on line and the cost of putting it in the paper is not a reasonable expense to the tax payer.
Puplic hearings on the other hand do get published in the paper.
Wendy wrote "It was not advertised. Saying it was on dnv.org is not good enough."
SAD Sad situation. Making fact statements that the writer has no idea as to whether or not they are a fact is just a tad over the top! At least try & ask DNV staff to tell you what dates it was in the paper before making such statements.
Post a Comment