This is what Sharon Urton's email to Suzanne Anton communicates loud and clear.
In spite of never signing up to receive her updates, I am a willing member of lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton’s mailing list, and thoroughly enjoy her gramatically creative opinions about “the country’s most greenest” community or her kind invites to exciting events like the NPA’s AGM, where my participation alone could have ensured a 2 per cent increase in attendance.
Not everyone, however, is as enamoured with these emails.
Sharon Urton was an NPA Park Board candidate in the 2008 last election whose main campaign thrust was her firm belief in “[e]qual access and equal opportunities to enjoy our Public parks and recreation services.”
On December 13, both Sharon and I received an Anton email that began with the following:
“1. Budget
How much do you value city services? Should council cut library hours or community centre budgets? Active communities program? Graffiti management? Should the park board have axed the Farmyard and Bloedel Conservatory on 10 days notice?
This Mayor ran for Vancouver council on a platform of solving provincial issues (shelters, mental health) with city taxes. People accept that (he was elected with a strong majority after all), but should council should then cut core city services and beloved local institutions? The process has been so hasty and so much a product of the back room that citizens have had very little time to react.
I believe there are adjustments which can be made so that core threatened programs can be kept with minimal tax impact and will try to persuade my colleagues to see it that way.
You can tell council what you think in person this Monday night (14 Dec) in the continuing public meeting. Call 604-871-6353 to sign up to speak. Or, of course, you can send me an email directly – I would love to know your opinion.”
I was too busy trying to find the “back room” that was amazingly able to incorporate dozens of citizens’ testimony and presentations into Council deliberations to actually take Anton up on her request.
Sharon, however, was not, and provided the following feedback (presented in excerpts) to her former running mate:
“I beg to differ:) To me your chess move is a tad out of line and a tad disrespectful of the strategic planning process by Park Board..and the strategic leadership underway to bring the core services of Park Board under our in house staff and management team.”
Anton having no institutional memory of the history or the infrastructure behind the Park Board? No way…couldn’t be. But please continue, Sharon:
“We do not live in la la land…basic services, demographics, common sense, avoiding duplication, efficiencies…all matter of considerations are being taken into account and trust between various entities is being restored with our VPB Acting GM and some newer management hires like Thomas Soulierre…it is like a breath of fresh air..good work is being done by professionals trained in this field Suzanne…this chess move is not helpful in getting us all moving together across the board.”
The Park Board, like all other entities within City Hall, took part in the shared services review, where services and staffing was looked at to create greater efficiencies and savings. Sharon seems to disagree with Anton’s assessment that “core threatened programs can be kept with minimal tax impact.” She obviously would rather look internally first before turning to the NPA’s default of raising taxes.
“Increasing taxes, even a minimal amount, is not an option for many people on this City. It also will not get to the excellent work that has been done to capture good economic management of our VPB resources (human and fiscal)..it may not be the Cadillac service but like universal health care covering the basics with equity factored in for equal access, equal affordability and equal opportunity in our 23 communities is a good starting point…right now is about the meat and potatoes…similar arguments to “at what price Medicare” because public Medicare could usurp our entire GNP and public recreation “for health”…”
The Bloedel Conservatory and petting zoo are not core services, as Urton correctly points out, particularly when compared to maintiaining accessibility within our community centres, for example. So, maintaining them at any cost to taxpayers is not something that the Park Board or Council should really be considering.
“I know your chess move is just politics and Michael Geller sent out a similar “message” but there is evidence-based planning and decision making that holds up the Vision and Mission of the Park Board with respect to mandated core services…as I see it ……
- Remember Active Communities was a challenge that grew out of the Olympic bid ..”20%more active by 2010″..this initiative will be sustained within the Vancouver Sport for Life Strategy by our VPB recreation programmers on staff..not grants..working in 23 communities..so the initiative becomes systematized…of course there is upset..there always is when the time for an imitative runs out but this one will be sustained ..it just had to disappear as a budget line item before things could be realigned with the Vancouver Sport Network (VSN) strategic planning and leadership to be launched in January 2010.
- Look at the weekend news about problems zoos are having…welfare issues of all kinds increasingly emerging..this is not a core service for VPB
- Imagine what could happen at Bloedel ..with Van Dusen ..like Kew Gardens for botanical research, tourism..something spectacular could develop …this is well beyond the scope of “public services” ..this is not a core service of VPB”
These were far from decisions that can be considered as “hasty,” as those attractions that didn’t have the numbers, appeal or cost effectiveness to fit into the budget were specifically targeted.
“Look Suzanne…this is not a time to be playing politics…it is a time to be supporting our VPB staff and management who have been sharpening their pencils, collaborating in entirely authentic ways and moving through this process in an entirely direct, honest, above board and genuine way….and you know this has not always been the case.”
The final statement is telling, and seemingly in reference to the previous NPA administration who never bothered to try and rein in costs and save taxpayers money.
This kind of an email (from a former NPA candidate no less) should be of great concern to the once mighty political entity. Vision Vancouver’s fiscal responsbility is quickly winning over a good percentage of the NPA’s traditional base of support, making the association’s recovery less and less likely with each passing day of the Vision administration’s run in office.
Rest assured that this development will be unlikely to stop Anton from continuing to play empty politics for the rest of that duration.
