Petition put behind doors

By roger knox Morning Star Staff Aug 15 2007 http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/

Listening to their lawyers, Vernon council adopted a resolution Monday not to allow scrutineers to be present when names are being reviewed in the alternate approval process to borrow $20 million to build the new library complex. Mayor Wayne Lippert, reading from a prepared press release, said council’s decision against allowing scrutineers is based upon four factors. Topping the list is privacy concerns. “The elector response form contains three types of personal information: the elector’s name, address and the expression of their view or opinion on the issue,” read Lippert. “The city has limited authority to use and disclose personal information under the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act, and disclosure of the information to scrutineers does not fall within any of the permitted grounds for disclosure.” Lippert said to be fair to all residents, a fair and potentially complex procedure for advertising, selecting and deciding on numbers of scrutineers would have to be established. The presence of scrutineers, according to council, would be impractical, as the City’s Corporate Officer, who will review the names on the elector response forms over different times of the day, may require electors to phone back at different times to verify information regarding signatures and addresses. And, said the mayor, the Corporate Officer’s decision is final and conclusive, unlike where there is a process for disputing the counting.

The last of the petitions are to be handed in by 4 p.m. today. A total of 10 per cent of voters against the process is required on the forms to turn down the alternate approval method. The Vernon Taxpayers Association, which has been demanding a referendum on the topic, say they’re not surprised by council’s move. “This is a very arrogant and very high-handed council that likes the decision to load taxpayers with debt through the side door,” said Taxpayers Association spokesman Tony Stamboulieh. “Regardless of the opinion of the taxpayers they are supposed to serve, they’ve said they’re going to build this complex. It’s a done deal. “There’s a huge lack of trust in this community, and that will be reflected on the petitions when we make the presentation.” Stamboulieh said his side is feeling extremely confident they’ll get the required amount of names on the petitions. “The operative word is extremely,” said Stamboulieh. “We are about to advise these seven people who pretend to serve the community how completely out of touch they are.”

Mayor Lippert said the outcome of the alternate approval process “will be what it will be.” “It’s a process that we’re going through,” he said. “Council chose it and we’ll see what comes in. I expect it will be close. The Taxpayers have done a good job of being out there and asking people to sign the petition. My only hope is that people have signed for the correct reasons. I don’t know which way it will go.” The Vernon Taxpayers Association said if they can’t have scrutineers present, they at least want some observers to review the rejected signatures, and they are also asking that the signatures not be destroyed prior to the result being released in case the association needs them for legal purposes. It’s anticipated it will take a couple of weeks to review the names on the petitions before official results are released
--------------------
Process proves its point
Aug 15 2007 EDITORIAL http://www.vernonmorningstar.com/

Today marks the end of the month-long counter-petition process fight to force the city’s hand on a proposed $20 million office building/library. The result may still be uncertain, but whether it passes or not, one can hope the city has learned the importance of openness and respect for the democratic process. There may, indeed, be good reasons for going the counter-petition route, in which 10 per cent of the electorate are needed to veto a borrowing bylaw, either sending it to referendum or back to the drawing board. But the perception, whether warranted or not, is that council tried to sneak one under taxpayers’ noses. And that perception is bad, both for city council and for prospects for a new library, which the city does need. The sense that council is trying to pull a fast one on residents has no doubt caused even some library supporters to sign the petition. That aspect of this, above all others, should be kept in mind. Ten per cent of voters may end up signing the petition, but that doesn’t mean every voter no longer believes in the current plans for a library. Rather, many have no doubt signed the petition to signal to council the importance of referendums when a municipality borrows money is a treasured right, one not to be subverted, whether for political or logistical reasons. Democracy, after all, is a messy form of government and one that often takes its time in making decisions. But as various attempts have shown those flaws aren’t a side effect that can be brushed away easily. Rather they have proven to be as ingrained in our political system as the secret ballot.