Not everyone within City Hall is up in arms about the internal change that is currently occurring, as some might have the public believe.

Frances Bula wrote a story about the changes that are going on at City Hall, which is fascinating enough in its account of how those within the Hall are reacting to the way in which things are being shaped by the Vision administration.  But then there was this comment left at her blog, which I for one don’t find surprising in the least:

• 5 city hall insider // Sep 23, 2010 at 8:44 pm

  “Change is long overdue in the Hall and we are all enduring the whining of a group that has controlled City Hall for many years under NPA regimes. To cry out that the current administration is politicizing the workforce is laughable. We have witnessed years of political appointments to management positions in this organization. The outcry at the hall from our hard done by managers is a result of the fact that their buddies are not in power any more to protect them from their nice gigs. The “leaked” memo is a calculated response from a group that is fearful of the changes that will be coming to City Hall once the Employee survey released and the services review is complete. We are seeing people being called into account. We have lobbied for change for a long time here and now we are beginning to see it. Many of us approve of what is going on. Let’s hope this new guy really knows what he is doing.”

No matter how certain individuals try to spin that city staff are disenchanted and on the verge of revolt, nothing could be farther from the truth.

As I have written in a past opinion piece for the Vancouver Sun, unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats from within City Hall – particularly the ones that were appointed by past political administrations – are prone to push back and do everything in their power to maintain their grip on the levers of power.

As Bula points out:

“While the Vision Vancouver administration has been making dramatic changes to the public face of the city, it has also been making less-visible but significant changes internally to create an organization more like a provincial ministry – attentive to what the political leaders want, centralized and more top down, quick to react and focused on efficient communication.”

And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that.  Political leaders that have been put in place by the people, and who must continue to answer to the people to keep their jobs, have every right to make the decisions for the policy direction of the City of Vancouver.  And accordingly, if changes are needed so that these political decisions can receive the proper attention and expediency that is necessary to advance an agenda, then I find them to be entirely appropriate, regardless of whether it creates what some might deem as “chaos.”

Having studied change management theory, and been a part of crafting a strategy for an entrenched organization encountering new leadership, I can say that selective blowback, and the ensuing intent by some to damage that new leadership in whatever way possible, is something that happens quite often.

But here is where the clarification must come in.  First, as Bula additionally points out, there are most definitely an array of mixed responses within City Hall to the above-mentioned changes:

“…there are some people who are really enjoying working with new city manager Penny Ballem — they like her directness, willingness to listen to new ideas, and decisiveness — I continue to hear daily complaints from people in various departments and at various levels in the system.”

This is a part of the 30/30/30 split that Penny Ballem talks about in the article.

Secondly, these changes are not crippling the organization as the same political opponents I alluded to above would have people believe.  Rather, these changes are contributing to a leaner, more efficient and much more responsive workforce.

Now I watched the video with the Vancouver Sun’s Fazil Mihlar and Jeff Lee talking about Gregor Robertson’s “summer from hell” as was coined by the headline writer.

In it, Lee talks about how Vision Vancouver is an “incredibly aggressive administration” when it comes to their agenda as they “came in with a mandate and they intend to exercise that mandate.”

Lee also describes how you are seeing people “reacting to a mandate that they really didn’t believe was going to take place…they wonder where this all came from.”

And my point is that if Lee is correct, then people voted blindly or just didn’t pay attention at all to what Vision campaigned on during the election.

Like I have referenced in a previous post, the majority of major policy planks that Vision Vancouver is now moving forward on were specifically referenced in Vision Vancouver electoral platform.

Bike Lanes?  Check.  The STIR program?  Check.  Tackling homelessness?  Check.  The greening of the city?  Check.

I will once again reference my past words to articulate my sentiment on whether Vision Vancouver is ramming an agenda down people’s throats:

“In a case like the overwhelming [electoral] result that Vision Vancouver received in November, 2008, there was an endorsement of their vision for the city, encompassing widespread coverage of their intent to tackle housing and affordability or sustainability and environmental stewardship.

Consultation is obviously essential, particularly when it comes to the locality and immediate impact felt within the civic political arena.

However, consulting for years on an idea that was already endorsed at the ballot box is simply a recipe for gridlock.”

This was not a hidden agenda folks.

And by virtue of that fact, the changes that have been implemented in City Hall under the leadership of Penny Ballem – the end to duplication of services, the cost savings, the changes in leadership, the systemic measures to ensure speed in adopting and implementing political direction, etc. – should also come as no surprise.

The vocal opponents of any program/initiative are always going to get more attention and play up their position far more than those who are passive and accepting of an idea, particularly in the current media climate of Vancouver, which in recent months tends to emphasize the sensational rather than the substantial.

But make no mistake about it – all of the griping that we in the civic political bubble of interest are getting barraged by these days – must be kept in perspective when contrasted with those city workers, members of the public and even media types that see the benefits in what Vision Vancouver is trying to do for the city.

The Vision Vancouver fundraiser in Chinatown on Wednesday night is a perfect example of how support – and I mean tangible support – is often a far cry off of what is being portrayed in the newspapers and through the airwaves.

Because after witnessing that turnout first hand, I’d be interested to hear whether an individual like Tung Chan really wants to wade into this kind of climate and test his own support within the Chinese community.

• Charlie Smith selectively posts an excerpt from a post I wrote in response to his disgusting speculation about former Prime Minister Jean Chretien’s possible death, and cries foul.  He quotes me pontificating about what might happen if he gets hit by a bus, which was a direct and sardonic way of showing how truly off Smith’s “journalistic” instincts were on his story.  Yet of course he completely ignores his own conduct, as Smith in his bubble of self-righteousness often does.  Hey Charlie, if we are going to have a debate about appropriate content, why don’t you include your own exploits into the mix?  I doubt that will ever happen…because self-examination isn’t something that Smith and his holier-than-thou attitude tends to engage in.

• Since it doesn’t seem that any of the local media are too interested in doing any kind of due diligence in their reporting these days – particularly when it comes to stories about City Hall – let me toss out a question that should have been asked from the very beginning: what are the most immediate motivations of the anonymous source that spoke to both Alex Tsakumis and Global television?  That single query might have provided the offending media organization some context and subsequently a pause for concern before giving him a platform void of scrutiny.

• Excuse me while I am dismissive of these statements by former Vision Vancouver Mayoral candidate Allan De Genova.  For a man that was rumoured (but by no means confirmed) to have spent in excess of $300,000 on a campaign that ended with a final total of about 1000 votes cast in his favour, I can understand his frustration.  His daughter of course returned to the NPA to run as a Park Board candidate just weeks after her father’s failed bid, and Allan himself had little to nothing to do with the party since his campaign.  Those two facts seem to confirm my opinion that Vision Vancouver represented little more than a convenient vehicle for De Genova to get back at Sam Sullivan and the NPA, and also to realize the next step in his civic political aspirations after serving for 15 years on the Park Board.  So, to hear De Genova talk about how Vision Vancouver is “about themselves” is kind of ironic.

• An interesting take on the reinvention of George Smitherman in the Toronto Mayoral race, who could be about 6-11 points behind Rob Ford depending on who you listen to.  Talking to Smitherman campaign manager Bruce Davis last week, however, gave me some insight into what the campaign is going up against.  They are looking directly across at a man that is prepared to dismantle the city and make it as bare bones an operation as possible, all on the backs of latent anger against a former Mayor who never quite convinced people that they were getting value for their tax money.  But while Ford has tapped into dissatisfaction, he is also someone that by no stretch of the imagination can be considered a builder with ideas that he wants to bring forward.  Let’s give my old friend Warren Kinsella some credit with his new involvement in the campaign of Rocco Rossi – a man who in recent weeks has released so many press releases articulating policies and ideas, the media can barely keep up.  That being said, Smitherman is truly the only candidate who has the potential to deliver a message based on where he sees the city going and what he wants to bring to the table – and in the process enamour the minds and imaginations of the public.  Time to think big George, and take a shot at making people dream about their city again.  That, as I see it, is the only way you are going to overcome the Rob Ford juggernaut.

• Yesterday’s post was not an attempt to “change the channel” or even to go on the attack to deflect attention away.  Rather, it was a sincere opinion about what the media have devolved into with regards to a whole lot of blind acceptance of political attacks dressed up a as legitimate news.  Journalists like Jeff Lee, Frances Bula and even Gary Mason understand what I am talking about based on their latest commentaries regarding the situation.  There are those, however, who are determined to build their career by throwing as many bombs as they can towards City Hall, without any concern for context, motivations or depth – just as long as it is sexy and scandalous enough to create a scent.  Lazy journalism is lazy journalism, and if the reporter in question thinks that her work is above reproach, good for her.  I and others (including many of her own colleagues) don’t tend to agree.

• The Evergreen line finally seems to have some political will get built.  The bad part about this new urgency is that cash-strapped municipalities are going to have to raise taxes or create new sources of revenue to pay Translink.  I really like the idea of transportation commissioner Martin Crilly to resort to road pricing, though.  High gas prices and new transporation options are having only moderate success in getting people out of their cars.  But if we took real steps to make people pay more to simply be on the road, and then on top of that we attached additional fees based on the amount of people they had in the car (single drivers in empty cars would obviously get dinged more), then we might just see some dramatic behavioural changes as a result.  Because at the end of the day, relying on municipalities, which as I have detailed many times can barely pay for basic services for their own citizens, is not a sustainable solution – unless, of course, the province allows for some more revenue-raising mechanisms for cities.  The likelihood of that happening?  I wouldn’t be holding my breath…at least not under this current provincial government.

• I just got back from Vegas, where the attire of female waitresses would make any Vancouver server blush.  Nonetheless, I think that this case could very well change the industry in this province.  Now, I will say that I believe that free will has a lot to do with where someone works – they choose to apply, the find out the parameters of the job, and then they make an informed decision as to whether they want to stay.  However, it is most definitely discrimination in my opinion if someone is denied shifts or even employment if they choose not to wear a revealing top or short skirt as part of their job.  If the job is serving, and their conduct with customers is top notch, then the amount of skin they show should not have any bearing on their suitability to work at a particular establishment.

Frances Bula's piece on Mike Magee is certainly garnering reactions across the spectrum.

Yesterday I wrote about how Frances Bula’s piece on Mike Magee, Gregor Robertson’s Chief of Staff, provided broader context on a group of individuals and their beliefs that those of just one man.  Namely, that those that have surrounded the Mayor in his journey into the political realm are grounded in a foundational desire to initiate positive change to their community.

And today, two further reactions to Bula’s piece.

The first is a predictable damnation of Magee and what he represents by the self-appointed leader of the opposition, and potential City Council contender for the NPA, Mike Klassen.   Klassen seems to have written the piece in defense of his website partner Daniel Fontaine, who was once former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s Chief of Staff.  He angrily mentions Vancouver Magazine’s Power 50 and Magee’s placement on the list at #17, forwarding his ridiculous belief that “list was created with Magee’s help.”

This is of course a lash out for the fact that Fontaine while in the same position never once made the list.  Ironically enough, he likens Magee’s decision to give Bula access a “Citizen Sam-esque miscalculation,” in spite of the fact that that miscalculation occurred around the time that Fontaine was guiding Sullivan’s political ship and Klassen himself was a consultant for the former Mayor.

Klassen desperately tries to point out the flaws in the man, when in essence he is only able to do so after Magee hid nothing from Bula when providing that access.  He is who he is, and does the job he does, without attempting to hold back on any of the warts in the landscape of his persona.  Exactly what an expose is supposed to do.

It is a desperate attempt at trying to create negative traction over a man who is more respected and liked by a variety of disparate communities across the city than any other Mayoral Chief of Staff in recent memory.

On the other end of the spectrum is a short and sweet writeup by former Vision Vancouver Campaign Manager Ian Reid, who is obiviously a lot more favourable.

Ian’s piece doesn’t have a lot of depth par se, nor is it surprising that it is so favourable by contrast.  However, it does ring true to anyone who knows Magee.  He is kind, yet tough, brilliant yet open to suggestions, and laid back and calm in the height of tension.

Bula’s piece isn’t about Magee guiding the Vision agenda.  Rather, it is a window into a man who acts as the ultimate facilitator for an ambitious slate of ideas and initiatives and has the skills, temerity and know-how to give it a real shot of becoming public policy.

Petty politics aside, someone who gives a shit about what they are doing based on belief and altruism, and who also has the capabilities to thrive in the role, is a Chief of Staff that is intriguing.  That is why Bula’s piece is such an entertaining read.

• Matching up this “headline” with the reality of what actually went down on Saturday is yet another example of how hollow this guy’s “breaking news” truly is.  And before he starts to assert that he was the driving force behind ensuring that the fly-over occurred (this is the kind of claim he might be prone to making), let me assure you that there was never any danger of the Canadian Forces not being able to put a show for the fans.  Word from my sources who the Canadian forces personnel reached out to for help is that all involved were very upset to learn more about the individual that they had chosen to take up their story.  I am going to try and get some details on how those pieces of correspondence were obtained, and what those personnel were told by said blog owner.

• After touring the city with my sister who is spending the summer in Vancouver after not living here for more than two weeks at a time since 2003, I heard how impressed she was as to Vancouver’s transformation through “loosening up” and becoming a lot more fun.  In fact, the new atmosphere of festivals and events and people truly experiencing the city is something that is being noticed by many of my contacts from a variety of different social circles.  Yes, the Olympics have had a lot to do with this, but just as important is the current City Council and Mayor, who might just have figured out exactly how to permanently change Vancouver’s “no-fun city” branding.

• Why did they have to call it “Rogers Arena“?  It would have been so much cooler for ticket holders to be able to say “We’re heading over to Rogers place to watch the game.”

• Meggs’ trip to Portland on the high speed rail was interesting, and in spite of the delay, tomorrow I will have a post up on the proceedings and what the future might hold for such a transportation link through the Cascadia region.  I promise.

• This guy’s laziness shows through in a poorly thought out, American-styled “I don’t need to tell the government anything” type of rant.  Frances has got it right when she describes the federal government’s decision to cancel the census as “a serious blow to our ability to understand who we are as a nation, what we’re doing collectively, and how to plan for the future.”  Absolutely – the better we know ourselves, the better we as citizens can figure out what kind of country we want.  Governments fumbling in the dark without reliable information on trends, demographics and how Canadians are living is downright scary – particularly with this government that is currently in place.

• Not sure when Kitsilano became a nude beach (maybe I should check it out later on today), but this writer’s take on Vancouver from a typical Toronto perspective is fun.  The commutes of Toronto’s freeways are a nightmare as anyone can attest, and being able to traverse a city without the hassle of getting onto one still continues to remain as one of North America’s true urban anomalies.  I might hate how traffic has increased over the past five years, but it is still a city of neighbourhoods that can easily be traversed without too much punching of the steering wheel.

• Embarassing?  Sure.  The Mayor is going to have to offer some kind of apology for this one, I am sure.  But the amount of misinformation being pedaled around the west end by a few dozen diehards is absolutely stunning.  This advisory council is an idea that will help to provide balanced representation (not voted in by those who would tirelessly organize to have all anti-Stir members on the committee) that will hopefully cut through the swath and get some real facts out into the community.