Will Voice merit a voter’s choice?

Expectant parents understand: names are important.
Reaching that crucial decision—Boris or Yosemite? Esmerelda or Manna?—of what to name that new bundle of joy can be a daunting task.
A friend of mine is expecting his first child in September. This tall, blond, white guy and his wife are thinking Arturo or Geronimo. Who am I to say?
New West’s mayor is lucky. Wayne Wright. Not only does he have an easy election slogan, the corny “Make the Wright Choice,” but his name is reminiscent of “wainwright” and the Royal City is always in search of a decent wagon maker.
As for political slates, their names are often boosterish in tone, like the new Surrey First across the river or Vision Vancouver next door. But better that than the bland (and erroneous) Non Partisan Association in that city, or the sad-sack COPE, whose slogan might as well be “COPE: We’ll muddle through.”
Until recently, New West was without a slate of its own on the municipal scene, though many say the labour-endorsed group on council (three) and school board (four) are a de facto slate.
But in January last year, the city got an official one: Voice New Westminster, its founding board of directors a healthy mix of has-beens, coulda beens, and possibly, shoulda beens from a broad range of political stripes.
As names go, Voice has a nice ring to it. But can the Royal City dance to it?
Better still, is Voice worth listening to?
In its first 15 months, the group has proven itself a consistent and articulate critic.
In 2007, Voice pointed out how staffing costs at Sixth and Royal outstrips many of its neighbours, as a percentage of the annual budget. It criticized the dysfunction in the planning department that (arguably) led to an exodus of staff. (Thankfully, an issue now resolved)
And it took shots at the school board, too, taking the extreme step of calling upon the province to appoint a special advisor to oversee the operations of the school district in order to restore public trust and confidence. Voice cited three strikes in their argument for bringing someone new to the plate: the asbestos exposure issue at NWSS, the fumbling approach to replace the high school and the pathetic record of the business company.
And back at city hall, Voice marched on, critical of what it calls the city’s “development-by-variance” approach, a jab at council’s tendency to grant approvals for variances so significant they effectively amount to a rezoning.
Voice is a politically-savvy bunch. What else would you expect when you have a former long-time councillor and mayoral candidate (Casey Cook), a former ministerial assistant in Victoria and unsuccessful candidate at three levels (Steve McClurg) and a crew of residents association presidents and PAC chairs?
In raising issues, they’ve also started targeting individual councillors they hope to pick off at the polls Nov. 15.
Coun. Jonathan Cote got spanked by the group for sending a memo to Moody Park area residents voicing his dismay about the decision to send the outdoor pool project back to the drawing board.
And to hear it from Voice, Coun. Bill Harper (another labour endorsed councillor) is the guy who wants to put a dirty waste-to-energy plant in Sapperton backyards, and park the garbage trucks in people’s driveways.
As a new slate in town, Voice is a welcome addition.
Operating as the unofficial opposition to current council and school board, they’ve given strength to many legitimate concerns about how this town is run.
For too long, critics like Christopher Bell and Kelvin Chao have been largely on their own, and lone voices, when they speak alone for too long, tend to ring shrill for lack of support.
Whether Voice candidates win any seats at the table this fall—well, that’s another question.
As far as names go, Voice has a good one. The group has said a lot in its first 15 months.
But saying what’s wrong is one thing.
Making it right is another.
This fall their platform should be judged with the same rigour they’ve given to the decisions of the politicians they hope to replace.

By Chris Bryan - New Westminster News Leader - May 14, 2008

Foundation issues are troubling

For an issue that was supposedly based on "gossip and unfounded allegations," the return last week of unclaimed bursary money to the F.W. Howay parent advisory council by the Royal City Education Foundation was as swift as it was overdue.

Clearly, this was not an "unfounded" issue - even if it was made far more complicated than it really needed to be.

I find it surprising, and more than a bit troubling, that prior to last week some of New Westminster's school trustees appear not to have been aware of the issue that the Howay PAC was having with the education foundation.

Not only is this rather strange, it is also disconcerting considering the fact that the Howay PAC has been pursuing its issue relative to the Royal City Education Foundation since last December.

Other New Westminster school PACs have had similar issues relative to the education foundation that go back much further in time.

So why some of the trustees don't appear to be aware of these issues is beyond me, because many people - including myself - have been aware of them for quite some time.

Now that these issues have been raised, I certainly hope the other school communities that have had difficulties in relation to the Royal City Education Foundation will likewise have their issues resolved - and swiftly.

As for the education foundation itself, I have no doubt that the funds raised go to the benefit of students. But that is not the issue. The issue is one of administration.

As trustee Brent Atkinson noted in his letter, the school district does indeed pay the salary of the foundation's "paid fundraiser."

And this "paid fundraiser" position has been generating controversy ever since a former school trustee was hired to be a "paid fundraiser" under the umbrella of the school district's business company following the 2002 school board election.

There are several recommendations I plan to make with regard to the "paid fundraiser" position, but I will present these to a meeting of the school district's finance and facilities committee where for more than six years I have been a community representative (having missed only one meeting, to my recollection).

Regarding the question of Voice New Westminster and its members attending meetings in our community: It is well-known that members and supporters of Voice attend practically every meeting held in this city.

In fact, Voice members and supporters have been attending school board, city council and other meetings in this community on a regular basis for many years - even prior to the formation of Voice New Westminster just over 15 months ago.

Letters to The Record have proven to be an essential and effective complement to the efforts that Voice members and Voice supporters make to attend and participate in school board, city council and other meetings in our community. Letters will continue to be an essential part of the process of bringing about positive change in our community and forcing our elected officials to be accountable to the community.

And, as many people in our community are already well aware, Voice New Westminster's efforts over the past 15 months have already led to many positive changes in our community, and Voice will continue to lead the way to positive changes for our community.

Patrick O'Connor

Here's the nail-head - that's it!!

The Editorial in the News Leader on Thurs. May 8, 2008, sure hit the nail right on the head. If you look at the positions and statements that Voice has been making since it's inception, the editorial buttresses and echoes precisely what this organization has been saying.

The political mis-management in the city has been mind boggling. Public safety, the state of the infrastructure, amenity facilities, taxes, increases in budgets, services in most areas, all are levels that have great cause for alarm. As the editorial states, we've sold the farm. We have people making decisions that they simply are not equipped or qualified for. In addition, we have folks making decisions to benefit primarily the people responsible for getting them elected - that is, special interests.

One need only look at the issues currently on the table to see the malaise that has gripped the city. The handling of the waste to energy site issue in Sapperton, the 12th St.
Society dissolution by the Province, the Moody Park Pool, all are recent manifestations of mismanagement and pandering to special interests.

Voice has played an important role in bringing these issues to light, and is working to find productive and creative solutions to the problems that have come forward. We will continue to fight for residents, taxpayers, business people and visitors to New Westminster.

C.C.

Harper Talks Trash

It has come to light recently that Metro Vancouver is moving forward with the expropriation of the Canfor Lands in Sapperton to build a "Waste to Energy" facility. In other words, an incinerator. This is whole heartedly supported by Councillor Bill Harper, who coincidentally took a trip recently to Japan to tour their WTE facility. In response to the future closure of the Cache Creek landfill, Harper stated recently, that loading our garbage on rail cars and sending it to Washington state is "expensive and environmentally irresponsible". And burning it in an incinerator isn't?

The proposed incinerator that Harper supports would be about twice the size of the present WTE facility in Burnaby, which would add about 200 trucks to our already choked roads and truck routes and will ultimately impact our air quality. Metro Vancouver is proposing spending up to 3 billion dollars on these WTE facilities, proposing three, and up to seven, of these incinerators throughout the region. This money, or far less, could be far better spent on investing in recycling, composting, and re-use facilities as well as a curb side green bin program for New Westminster and throughout the region, eliminating the proposed "need" for an incinerator. Programs such as these are already being adopted in cities throughout the country, and North America, with resounding success. Harper is showing his short sightedness and backwards thinking on this issue. There is no such thing as a zero emissions incinerator. "Gasification", as it is becoming popularly known, produces toxic emissions, greenhouse gases, and increased pollution in our air, which contributes to health risks, climate change, and global warming.

It is time that the local, provincial and federal government make industry responsible for it's overuse of packaging, which inevitably becomes the consumer's and the city's problem. The local government needs to ramp up city recycling, which would include single family homes and multi-family housing units, such as townhouses and condominiums. This would also include commercial, such as restaurants and food stores, industrial and institutional facilities, such as hospitals. The province needs to adopt a comprehensive waste reduction policy instead of proposing to spend billions on burning waste, ultimately letting the manufacturers off the hook and polluting our air. It seems that recycling, reducing and reusing are not even an option. Burning our waste only blocks the investment in green waste diversity alternatives and eliminates hundreds of potential jobs in the recycling industry. Burning waste is not recycling, as the proponents of the incinerator would like you to believe. In the end, the federal government needs to introduce regulations on packaging and make industry responsible for the waste it is creating.

Councilman Harper and Mayor Wright, educate yourselves. This issue does not just affect Sapperton and New Westminster. Don't abandon a waste diversion strategy. B.C., Metro Vancouver, and this city are moving in the wrong direction. Don't burn our futures.

Dana Hings

New Westminster resident and director of Voice - New Westminster

World Day for Safety and Health at Work: 28 April 2008

The following was submitted as a comment to a previous posting but Voice agrees with the sentiments included and so we are posting it on its own so that it might be viewed by more bloggers. We would like to thank WillMaar for taking the time to write in and for reminding us of this important information.

"On April 28, we remember. We mourn the dead. And we continue to fight for the living.
Some think the labour movement fights only to better workers’ standard of living. Just as often, our struggle is more basic - we’re fighting for our members’ lives. Legislation, regulations and occupational disease prevention would be relegated to the back burner but for the struggle and vigilance of union members.
Occupational health and safety legislation has been in place since the early 70s, but it has failed to check Canada’s dismal record of injuring and killing workers.
As many workers have died at work since that first legislation was passed in Canada in 1972 as the number of Canadians who fought and died during World War II. Is it any wonder workers are asking why the current health and safety system is failing them?
Workers that died in BC in 2007= 139
• 23 in vehicle accidents
• 71 occupational diseases (59 asbestos related)
• 45 traumatic fatalities
• 6 young workers between the ages of 15 – 24
30 Canadian soldiers killed in Afghanistan in the year 2007
We are in a war zone and we have far too many casualties.
On April 28, we remember. We mourn the dead. And we continue to fight for the living."

What Density Bonusing Could have Meant to New Westminster

Everyone's worst fears were confirmed at the Density Bonusing Workshop Wednesday evening. Most of our sister cities have implemented the plan sometime ago, but as usual our council is just beginning to entertain the idea. It is a process whereby developers interested in building in areas designated for higher density under the Official Community Plan would be given the opportunity to increase the size of their building in return for an agreed upon amenity contribution. The following is a quote from The Local Government Act of British Columbia : "Several cities have used density bonusing since the 1950s to achieve community improvements and public benefits. Density bonusing is essentially a system of exchange, allowing zoning requirements to vary in exchange for provision of certain amenities or housing that benefit the community."

Let's use the downtown as an example, under the existing OCP the area is zoned for buildings from 4 - 13 stories in height; using Plaza 88 as an example, they are zoned for a maximum of 13 stories. Azure 1 and 11 consist of 33 stories each or 40 stories above what the Official Community Plan allows. If each floor consists. of 5 units which average 900 sq. feet at an average cost to the developer of $24,000, the approximate amenity contribution by the developer to the city would be 200 units x $24,000 = $4.8 million.

Using Plaza 88 as but one example Wayne Wright the self-proclaimed choice of labour and the labour council slate of Cote, Harper, and Williams have sold the farm. The boom is over, they are attempting to close the barn door after the horses have left. Their complete incompetence has set the city back 10 years and cost all of us tens of millions of dollars. When it comes to public amenities New Westminster is a barren wasteland. Given the incredible amount of development this gang has approved divisive public brawls such as the Moody Park Pool fiasco that pitt neighbourhood against neighbourhood should never occur. A lack of theater space, parks, and an adequate ice/lacrosse space would be problems about to be solved. There will be another building boom, let's shuffle this lot out the door at the next election and turn the royal city around.

It's time for real answers

Voice director, Patrick O'Connor, had a letter published in "The Record" on Saturday, April 19, 2008

In his weak defence of the Royal City Education Foundation, trustee Ron Bennett is characteristically long on feel-good platitudes and woefully short on providing answers to the serious questions and substantive issues currently being raised by members of this community (Director defends foundation, The Record, April 12).

I have personally received information from parents in five different school communities in New Westminster, expressing their frustration, and even outrage, over their school's interactions with the education foundation in recent years.

Clearly this is not just a case of "rumours and assumptions ... floating around the community," as Bennett has dismissively phrased it.

These are well-documented and long-standing concerns, and Bennett's dismissive, platitudinous attitude in the face of these concerns is appalling.

Issues with the Royal City Education Foundation have been brewing in our community for several years, particularly following the controversial hiring in 2003 of a former New Westminster school trustee to work as a "paid fundraiser" for the education foundation, under the umbrella of the school district's controversial business company.

Back in 2003, when this "paid fundraiser" position was created for the former New Westminster school trustee, a number of the school district's unionized support staff workers with the Canadian Union of Public Employees indicated their shock and disbelief to me, and to others, and stated that they were just as qualified as the former school trustee was for this "paid fundraiser" position.

They felt the position should have been openly posted, and I fully agreed with them.

Creating this "paid fundraiser" position within the shadowy domain of the business company in order to bypass the normal job posting process showed serious contempt for the spirit and fairness of established employment practices.

Whether Bennett wants to admit it or not, there is a cloud hanging over the Royal City Education Foundation, and the issues must be addressed. Questions and concerns surrounding the foundation have accumulated to the breaking point, and it's time to sort this mess out.

I'm also certain that it hasn't been lost on anyone that the Royal City Education Foundation now represents a third problematic leg in the New

Westminster school district empire. The disgraceful saga surrounding the school district's business company and the efforts that were made by those in charge to rebuff questions and concerns raised by the community is something that everyone is well aware of. And, as everyone will recall, in the case of the business company, the community's questions and concerns finally prompted the minister of education to appoint an outside investigator to look into the situation.

That outside investigator ended up recommending several new regulations to govern the affairs of school district business companies, and most of these stemmed directly from the issues that diligent members of the community had identified, particularly with respect to issues of accountability and transparency.

Likewise, community concerns about the botched high school replacement project and the inability of the school district to build a badly needed third middle school led the minister of education to appoint the same outside investigator to look into the high school replacement issue.

When all was said and done, it was shown that the school trustees had frittered away $7 million on their high school plan, with nothing to show for it.

And, although the outside investigator's report to the minister of education regarding the botched high school project has never been made public, to my knowledge, the letter of understanding between the school district and the Ministry of Education laying down the terms for a renewed effort to build a new high school and middle school for New Westminster does shed some light on what he reported back to the minister.

Section 1.8 of the April 27, 2007 letter of understanding states that "the review team noted weaknesses in the project development work that was undertaken in advance of issuing a call for tenders. ... Different grade configuration options were not evaluated. ... Enrolment projections did not accurately reflect the trend in actual numbers of students being generated from new development in the community. ... Inclusion of additional space for ancillary programs and services complicated the building design ... (and the) building was not designed to stay within the approved funding allocation."

Given the apparent but fairly obvious conclusions of the outside investigator about the operation of the school district's business company and the poor planning involved in the failed high school/middle school projects, one would think that Bennett would take seriously the concerns and issues now being raised by diligent community members about the Royal City Education Foundation.

But, as past experience has demonstrated, Bennett is being true to form in attempting to dismiss these concerns the way concerns about the business company and the high school project were previously dismissed.

Concerns and issues being raised about the Royal City Education Foundation must be investigated. There are too many people in the community who are raising similar concerns, independent of one another, for there not to be something substantively wrong, just as there was with the business company and the high school project.

The only question now is whether the school district will voluntarily submit to an outside review of the foundation and the district's fundraising efforts or whether such a review will end up being imposed from the outside by the Ministry of Education.