Mayor Sharon Shepherd has opened a hornet‘s nest that is guaranteed to put some sting in the upcoming municipal election campaign. Without saying that she voted against an in-camera motion to appeal the Simpson Covenant decision, Shepherd left no doubt that is exactly what she did. In doing so, some councillors think she
has violated the confidentiality of the in-camera vote. “I‘m deeply dismayed by the mayor‘s action,” said Coun. Brian Given. “That‘s all I‘m going to say, but you can take that to the bank. “I don‘t know what I can and can‘t say (about the in-camera vote). I don‘t know if I would breach confidentiality, but I‘m not going to put myself in the position the mayor is in.”In a press release sent out late Monday, the mayor said: “The appeal of the Kelowna Sawmill/Simpson Covenant should become an election issue. I intend as part of my campaign to run on the basis of promoting the election of a council that will support the defeat of the appeal of the covenant. “I feel this should now be in the hands of the electorate, which will go to the polls on Nov. 15, and I encourage everyone to consider asking every candidate if they will vote to defeat the appeal of the covenant. My answer is already that I will.” Council voted Monday to appeal the decision by Madame Justice Catherine Bruce that supported the validity of the covenant as a public trust. Coun. Barrie Clark said he is thinking of bringing forward a motion that would make public council‘s vote on the appeal. “I think (Shepherd) broke the spirit and intent (of in-camera),” said Clark. “What happens next? That‘s the question all of us are pondering. We could have a motion that council release everything. I might make that motion, but I‘m still sleeping on it.”
Carol Gran said Shepherd was wrong to make her vote known, but wouldn‘t oppose a motion to have the results made public. “I‘m disappointed in her,” said Gran. “I think the mayor has overreacted, maybe emotionally. In a leadership position, that is not how you behave. “But I think we should let the sun shine on the entire issue. I wouldn‘t be the least bit concerned with releasing the vote. I‘d be happy to state my position.” Coun. Andre Blanleil also didn‘t think Shepherd should have gone public. “Everybody is allowed their opinion, but I‘m a little disappointed in her,” said Blanleil. Asked if he would support a motion to make the vote public, Blanleil said he would want to hear everyone‘s arguments before making a decision.
He‘s concerned the campaign could come down to just one issue. “She is saying how you voted will determine whether you are a good councillor,” said Blanleil. “. . . I would hope that being a city councillor is more than one issue.” Coun. Robert Hobson doesn‘t think Shepherd was out of line. “We are all going to have to take a stand on this during the campaign,” he said. Hobson said he‘s not yet ready to make his position known, but he will when the campaign starts. Coun. Norm Letnick is waiting to speak with Shepherd before expressing an opinion on her actions. “I‘ve left a couple of messages for her,” he said Tuesday. Shepherd said a referendum may be the best way to decide the issue.
“When I ran for mayor, I stated I supported the spirit and intent of the covenant and have not lost sight of that promise,” she said. “I continue to support the intentions of the covenant lands.” Sharron Simpson, who took the city to court to preserve the covenant, said Shepherd made “a gutsy move” in going public. “I‘m sure she is not in great favour with the rest of her council,” said Simpson, “It‘s a very interesting development.” Simpson, a former councillor and unsuccessful mayoralty candidate, said although many have asked, she has no intention of running for office in November. Bruce ruled that the agreement between the city and Simpson was not a covenant, but did amount to an enforceable charitable trust. An appeal would not likely be heard until next spring. The new council would have the ability to abandon the appeal.
Simpson‘s grandfather sold the downtown properties to the city in 1946 for $55,000. Among other things, the agreement covering the sale stipulated that the land only be used for municipal purposes. The city had argued the covenant was outdated and unenforceable and said rezoning is a better way to protect the land.
------------------------
Don Quixote Note: I e-mailed Vernon's Contact at the Province (08/19) and am waiting the reply.
http://vernonblog.blogspot.com/2008/08/shepherd-will-fight-covenant-appeal.html
The above link gives the background of the declassification of an camera matter in Kelowna and the ruling of the City Clerk that:
" Legally, in-camera votes are to remain private. When asked about the process, Fleming told reporters councillors could face serious repercussions if they revealed how they, or any other councillor voted. Fleming says that would contravene the Community Charter. '
My recollections in Vernon is that the City opined " that such a vote would be contrary to the charter and that the results of the in-camera vote would not be revealed. (Moreover such a motion could not be seconded or brought to the floor for debate.) HOWEVER, any councillor was as free as always to state his vote in relationship to a declassified in-camera vote but was restricted from telling how any other councillor voted or indeed the total vote either for or against."
- What is the correct interpretation of the Community Charter with respect to this matter?
- Can a Councillor exercise his freedom of speech to reveal how he, himself voted on a declassified motion?
- Is the Vote Total and split remain incamera forever? (5-2 4-3 etc.)
This question is quite important to clarify as it seems to be the intention of a neighbouring municipality councillor to ask for for the voting pattern of a declassified motion to be revealed in an open council meeting. Can such a motion be entertained for debate and vote by the City Clerk?
Thanks in advance for your advice and cooperation in this matter.
No comments:
Post a Comment