MLA drops the ball

By Richard RolkeFeb 14 2007 http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/

Thousands of people signed a petition demanding that the government keep the Fruit Union liquor store open. But you’d never know that by Tom Christensen’s actions. When it came time for the local MLA to present the 6,350-name petition in the Legislature Nov. 23, all he said was, “I have a petition to table, please.” He didn’t say what the petition was about and he didn’t disclose how many names were on it. Other MLAs submitted petitions that day, some of them in considerable detail as to the cause involved. But not our Tom. He did the absolute bare minimum.

The issue arose at Monday’s city council meeting when Coun. Barry Beardsell recounted viewing the video tape of Christensen in the Legislature. “He didn’t even say what the petition was about. I find this disappointing,” said Beardsell. Now it’s no secret that Christensen didn’t support the efforts of the B.C. Government and Services Employees Union in trying to keep the Fruit Union store open. “In the host of issues and challenges the government is responsible for, liquor stores are not on the top of the priority pile,” he said during an interview in mid-December. And it’s hard to disagree with that, especially when there will still be a government liquor store in Vernon — at a new location at the north end of town — and the downtown core is served by three private liquor retailers.

Nobody is going to go without their case of beer. However, that is a completely separate issue to Christensen’s brevity in the House. The real question is why didn’t a duly elected MLA do a complete and thorough job of presenting a petition from his constituents? Why didn’t he explain to his colleagues what the petition was about? Why couldn’t he put in the same effort other politicians did? Obviously Christensen doesn’t personally support the goals of the union-initiated petition, but that is completely irrelevant. Once elected, an MLA is supposed to represent the interests of all constituents despite his own views. He could have explained the petition in fine detail without having to say whether he agreed with it or not.

Christensen’s comments are especially concerning when you look back to that December interview and he says, “When I have a good number of constituents convey their views to me, I take it seriously.” It’s sure hard to tell based on the Nov. 23 transcripts of Hansard. In an interview Tuesday, Christensen defended himself. “I committed to present the petition and I did that. More importantly, I went and talked to the minister involved. Every argument presented to me (by the public), I’ve passed on,” he said. That may be true, and certainly the cabinet minister responsible for liquor stores is the ultimate decision-maker. However, residents need to actually see their elected representatives speaking on their behalf and that opportunity was woefully missed in the Legislature.

Christensen also claims he didn’t go into specifics about the petition because it goes against the rules of the House. Well, he must be the only one aware of that because it’s done by other MLAs all the time. Ultimately, Christensen dropped the ball. Hopefully he will learn some lessons from this situation and be a little more proactive the next time he is enlisted by constituents.

-----------------------------------

Don Quixote Note: Local MLA tables local Petition with great brevity ! posted Jan 26 has videotape of presentation and Hansard record.