Public outcry strikes chord: TransLink schedules new United Boulevard Extension (UBE) public info session

Public outcry over an inadequate consultation process and poor information flow surrounding the proposed United Boulevard Extension (UBE) appears to have struck a chord with TransLink.

TransLink has announced that an additional UBE public information session will now be held on December 7th at the Justice Institute in New Westminster.

The details, as provided by TransLink, are as follows:

Presentation and discussion session 6:00 P.M.* to 8:30 P.M.

At the Justice Institute
715 McBride Boulevard
New Westminster

*Presentation in the Theatre begins at 6:45 P.M., followed by a discussion.

Although we applaud TransLink for recognizing that the previous session at the JI was not well received by the public, we would also like to see a commitment by TransLink and the City of New Westminster to a full and open discussion at the December 7th session along with a commitment to provide full information on the subject.

We recognize that TransLink and the City of New Westminster have different mandates and functions. However, New Westminster is a member of TransLink, and for one party to feign ignorance of the activities of the other is simply not acceptable to the public.

We are also aware that subsequent to the last UBE session New Westminster expressed its desire to have three of the proposed options removed.

However, shouldn't the options presented to the public at the last session have been agreed to by the two parties prior to the public meeting?

As a number of people have commented, the last session at the JI was characterized by chaos, confusion and political point scoring. New Westminster’s intrepid mayor even weighed in and called the meeting a “donnybrook.”

For the December 7th session we recommend that the City make it very clear which UBE options it will and will not entertain.

The City should also make clear what its intentions are regarding a Waste to Energy site in the Braid Industrial Area.

And although we are very aware that a decision has not yet been made by the Province regarding a solid waste management strategy for the Metro region, we do not want to see a repeat of the last Waste to Energy initiative for the Braid Industrial Area which saw New Westminster residents misled by the City as to City’s position and intentions on the issue.

Additionally, the City needs to be completely forthcoming regarding the nature and content of its negotiations with the City of Coquitlam on the UBE. We feel it's really quite simple: be clear about what was discussed with Coquitlam and clear about any and all decisions and understandings reached.

Cheap political stunts and negotiating via long distance through the press does nothing to help the process move forward and only adds to the public confusion.

Lastly, both the City and TransLink need to be open and forthcoming about what commitments were made when the application for federal funding was submitted. For instance, are there strings attached to the funding? What commitments were made to the railways, if any? What were the timelines?

We urge all those interested in this important issue to keep December 7th open and to participate in this important public session.

Kudos to Trustee Jim Goring: New SD40 Conflict of Interest Policy

The New Westminster school district now has a conflict of interest policy of sorts.

Kudos to Jim Goring and the other Voice school board trustees for pursuing this issue in the face of resistance from other board members.

Although the new policy isn’t as explicit or clear cut as the policy proposed by Trustee Jim Goring at the November 9^th board meeting, it does address the fiduciary responsibility of trustees and senior staff and allows the district superintendent, secretary-treasurer and trustees to point out when a trustee is in a potential conflict of interest.

However, it remains to be seen how the policy withstands the acid test of application.

As background to his notice of motion, Jim Goring stated that “a clear [conflict of interest] policy that includes accountability is imperative so that the public can see that the business of the School Board is transacted free of conflict of interest.”

As a point of interest we’ve provided the text of Jim Goring’s original Notice of Motion below.

Niki Hope also had an article on the subject in the Record.

Again, kudos to Jim Goring and the other Voice school board trustees for pursuing this issue and it will be interesting to see how the new policy withstands the acid test of application.

Submitted by: Jim Goring

SUBJECT: Notice of Motion re: Conflict of Interest

For consideration at the November 9, 2010 Open Board meeting

Background:

The British Columbia Trustee Association recommends that school districts develop Conflict of Interest policy and procedures. SD 40 New Westminster has a motion duly passed to develop such a policy, however, this has not yet been done. A clear policy that includes accountability is imperative so that the public can see that the business of the School Board is transacted free of conflict of interest. The School Board is currently involved in the very important process of contract negotiations with one of its employee groups.

Motion:

THAT the motion passed December 15, 2009 to develop a Conflict of Interest policy be acted upon immediately with a policy developed by November 18, 2010 for consideration at the November 23, 2010 Open Board meeting.

AND FURTHERMORE THAT the policy address apparent and perceived conflict of interest.

AND FURTHERMORE THAT the policy include guidance on the direct and indirect pecuniary interest of a Trustee which at a minimum would include a Trustee:

1. who has parents or children (including financially independent adult children) who are employed by SD 40;

2. who has received election campaign funding or an endorsement from an entity with a pecuniary interest in the matter;

3. who is a shareholder in or a director or senior officer or has a controlling interest in or is a director or senior officer of a corporation that offers its securities to the public, and the corporation has a pecuniary interest in the matter or;

4. who is a partner of a person, is a member of a firm or is in the employment of a person or firm or entity that has a pecuniary interest in the matter.

AND FURTHERMORE THAT the policy shall include guidance on the pecuniary interest of a Trustee in a collective agreement.

AND FURTHERMORE THAT until the policy is developed Trustees shall consider, at a minimum, the following guidelines prior to participating in contract negotiations or discussions on contract negotiations.

Trustees may have direct or indirect pecuniary interests in collective agreements (i.e. those that are negotiated or ratified by SD#40 or BCPSEA) in a number of ways, including:

a) Trustees who are employed by a school district under the collective agreement, or whose spouses are so employed;

b) Trustees who have parents or children (including financially independent adult children) who are employed by a school district under a collective agreement;

c) Trustees who are officers of or employed by trade unions that are parties to a collective agreements because they represent school district employees.

d) Trustees who may have received significant campaign contributions or endorsements from any parties to a collective agreement.

Important Consulation Meeting Tonight - Please Attend

Tonight TransLink is hosting a public consultation meeting on the long-planned, and for many, dreaded, United Boulevard Connector, or as it is now called the United Boulevard Extension (UBE).

According to TransLink:
"The North Fraser Perimeter Road has been a regional priority for many years and is designated as an important goods movement corridor.
Phase 1 improvements will connect Brunette Avenue with United Boulevard, relieve congestion at the single-lane bridge over the Brunette River and improve the Braid and Brunette at-grade rail crossing resulting in:
+ Rerouting of truck traffic out of New Westminster residential neighbourhoods and into industrial areas.
+ Improving the connectivity, efficiency, reliability and safety of the regional trucking, cycling and walking networks.
+ Improving connectivity between New Westminster and Coquitlam.

Those at the "stakeholders" meeting last week saw 4 options presented. The first, most closely resembling what had always been discussed with New Westminster over the years, was the most costly and the least disruptive to New Westminster. Options 2-4 all had huge impacts on property owners, on lost tax revenue and on neighbourhood livability.

Please attend the open house meeting tonight, November 18, 2010, 5:30 p.m. to 8:30p.m. at the Justice Institute of British Columbia, 715 McBride Boulevard.
Let TransLink know what this will mean to you.

It is interesting to see how this issue is being reported by media in Coquitlam.

Note: To view a copy of Mayor Wright's letter to the Coquitlam NOW click here.

The Toxic Blob That Ate Due Diligence

News this past week that the Pier Park is home to a much greater amount of toxic contamination than was previously thought comes as little surprise to many observers. After all, the site has a long history of industrial use from an age when environmental considerations, regulations and awareness were not what they are today.

Sadly, the due diligence that could have identified a costly issue like this one early on was lacking at the outset of the project.

We want to be very clear here in stating that Voice and its members are not at all opposed to opening up New Westminster's long-derelict waterfront to productive new uses such as parks, walkways, housing and commercial enterprises. Reclaiming the city’s derelict waterfront and making it accessible and useful once again have been a goal of the community for several decades and all of these would be welcome improvements.

In fact, in a September 25, 2008 Voice press release, we stated our full support for “the creation of a properly planned foreshore park on New Westminster’s waterfront” while at the same time expressing our concern that negotiations for the sale of the Westminster pier property were nearing the completion stage without any public consultation or planning.

In our assessment, it looked very much like the purchase deal had been put together quickly to meet the deadline of the 2008 election and that the mayor was “trying to conjure up an election goody to dangle before the voters without any regard for logical planning, just like he did with the Plaza 88 development prior to the [previous] election.”

Due diligence was clearly warranted considering the history of the property but was just as clearly lacking, and we offered several recommendations in our September 2008 press release outlining what we felt the appropriate course of action should be in relation to the Westminster pier property purchase:

1. That the City of New Westminster should acquire an option to buy the Westminster Pier parcel of land with the stated intention that it plans to use the property for a foreshore park and a pocket cruise ship destination.

2. That after an option to buy has been acquired, the city should engage in a transparent and comprehensive public consultation process regarding the proposed use of the property.

3. That all owners and occupants of properties in the vicinity of the proposed foreshore park should be notified in writing of the proposed consultation process.

4. That all necessary amendments to the Official Community Plan (OCP) and all necessary zoning issues be dealt with completely prior to the city exercising its option to buy the Westminster Pier property.

5. That the intentions of TransLink with respect to the construction of a new Pattullo Bridge be determined prior to the completion of a purchase of the property.

There was clearly no good reason why the pier property needed to be purchased in a rush in the Fall of 2008 other than to serve as a pre-election announcement for the Mayor. The property certainly wasn't going anywhere, especially when you consider the "brownfield" status of the property and the high cost of remediating the impacts of past industrial activity on sites like this.

There was more than enough time for the proper due diligence to have been carried out, but sadly it was not and that omission is now coming home to roost.

Where this will all end up, and what the full financial impact will ultimately be for the already overburdened taxpayers of New Westminster, remains to be seen. But one thing is certain: Due diligence is essential to good governance and there is always time for it in any well-planned, transparent public process. It is truly unfortunate, therefore, that due diligence was not observed in the purchase of the pier property and, even worse, that due diligence was trumped by political opportunism.