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.

Yesterday I stumbled on Frances Bula’s hidden online gem about Mike Magee, the Chief of Staff to Mayor Gregor Robertson.

I think it is a pretty interesting look at the personality that the Mayor seems to trust more than any other (OK, maybe Amy his wife pulls ahead).

Magee is an enigma in many ways - at one time a star athlete that played hockey for the Blackhawks at the Chicago Forum in a preseason game, he has shifted pretty comfortably into his second career stream.

But what strikes me is the sentiment behind those that have surrounded Gregor Robertson for many years, REGARDLESS of whether you identify with all of their ideals and beliefs or not.

Reading the above-linked profile, or this one which talks about Joel Solomon, Gregor’s chief backer, brings one thing to light.

The involvement of these indivduals in the political realm isn’t about power, or profile, or finncial benefit.  Their invovlement is about initiating change, and making the jurisdiction they are trying to improve (in this instance, the City of Vancouver) better than the way they found it.

These are the excerpts that I find very telling about the motivations behind this group:

“You identify a target, keep disparate groups onside, play the media. And just as skills carry over, so do values. A lifetime of deep belief in the inherent problems of militarization, resource extraction, and global energy consumption doesn’t simply end. Instead, it blooms in the presence of the perfect mate and political vehicle—a man like Gregor Robertson, whose values are essentially Green but who is willing to do whatever it takes to change the world a little.”

“The difference with Solomon and Newell, both born and raised in the United States, was that they focused their investments in one region to make the most sweeping change possible on a social, business, environmental, and political scale.”

”

In a speech in San Francisco in July 2008, Solomon told his audience that his and Newell’s strategy “was to take a long-term look at how to deploy financial resources toward systemic social change focused in one region.

“So we make business investments, charitable grants, support collaborations, leadership development and capacity-building with the hopes of influencing public policy and creating models of sustainability solutions long-term,” he explained in the speech, which is posted on YouTube.”

Critics and political vendettas promote the concept that the change being ushered in at City Hall is “radical” and that American big-money interests are creeping into this city and impacting in a way that is harmful.

Bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.  The Vision agenda thus far has been about tackling homelessness, creating affordable housing options, creating sustainability, focussing on alternative forms of transportation, and making Vancouver a competitive centre for business that harnesses our green agenda to bring investment.

How those planks are in any way “radical” is beyond me.

If one wants to have an argument about how successful they have been, or whether those items should be at the top of the agenda, those are worthwhile queries and considerations to ponder.

But labeling a progressive agenda that looks at a more holistic view of the city as “dangerous” and akin to “social engineering” is once again, back-biting, petty politics.

Take for example former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s push for increased density.  Now I and many other might not have liked how he hoarded the concept as his own, but the fundamentals of what he was trying to achieve made sense.  In fact, it is an ideal that Vision Vancouver now seems intent on continuing.

Take this away from the partisanship for a second, and the commentary that needs to be advanced is that it is refreshing to see wide-eyed optimists and idealists who want to make a positive impact on the community in which they live entering the political realm.

This isn’t about having your name beside a title, or having power and influence in certain circles, or even getting your mug on the evening news.

People can call the Vision Vancouver Mayor, the party’s agenda, and the people who are advancing it in one way or another, whatever they want to insinuate danger, or suspicion, or even malintent. 

But the reality is that these peope do care – they care about getting people off the streets; they care about making Vancouver and its residents more in line with our surroundings and the long-term health of the environment; they care about making the city competitive and an epicentre for cutting edge ideas, concepts and technologies.

Passion in politics driven by belief?  This is the kind of politics that I could get used to. 

It is also something I wish was more prevalent across the country.

Unlike the policies of former Mayor Sam Sullivan to ticket the homeless, of which Mike Klassen was a supporter, the City of Vancouver is a different place under new leadership these days.

Mike Klassen of CityCaucus and NPA “fame” has claimed that Mayor Gregor Robertson “blames” a rookie cop for a inappropriate ticket to a man sleeping in a tent.

Nothing could be further from the truth.  Here is the VPD’s explanation of the incident:

Vancouver – A by-law ticket issued to the occupant of a ‘red tent’ in the 300 block Main St on April 22 will be cancelled. The ticket was issued by a newly graduated officer who had not yet been briefed about the Vancouver Police Department’s policy of deferring enforcement and management of people camping or tenting in City parks or on sidewalks to the City of Vancouver.

Steps are being undertaken to ensure that all new members will receive refreshers on all current VPD policies.

-30-

Constable 1920 Lindsey Houghton
Media Relations Officer
Community & Public Affairs Section
Vancouver Police Department | Beyond the Call

The City of Vancouver has initiated a distinct departure from the days of Sullivan’s infamous “Project Civil City,” where the homeless were targeted and ticketed by the police, under the direction of the NPA Mayor and Council.

Gregor Robertson has simply echoed the comments directly from the VPD, where a rookie officer was not entirely aware of the new approach being taken IN TANDEM by the City of Vancouver and the VPD to treat people on the streets with respect and compassion rather than as criminals.

Mike Klassen has expressed his affinity and association with the NPA, past and future.  He was a huge backer of Sullivan during the time where Project Civil City became the main focal point of tackling the problem of homelessness on our streets.  He is also someone who uses complete creative license with his editorials.

The fact is that this Mayor and Council have outlined a strategy to eliminate street homelessness by 2015, and are well on their way towards doing so.  This is not only about opening shelters, or securing commitments for longer-term housing options, but just as importantly, changing the attitudes shown to people living on the streets by the powers that be.

This is a political directive that echoes the Vision Vancouver approach to politics: governing with a heart.

Nowhere does Klassen comment about the policy of ticketing the homeless.  In fact, he conveniently glosses over it in favour of trying to create a conspiracy where none exists.

So, until Klassen addresses the issue at hand, and specifically references his opinion on the practice of ticketing the homeless in the name of “public order,” then his words serve as little more than empty attacks against a potential future political opponent.

]]> http://civicscene.ca/a-false-and-misleading-headline-by-npa-supporter-mike-klassen-as-per-usual/feed 0 http://civicscene.ca/mr-robertson-goes-to-ottawa http://civicscene.ca/mr-robertson-goes-to-ottawa#comments Tue, 02 Mar 2010 18:48:09 +0000 Jonathan Ross http://civicscene.ca/?p=3298

Robertson's looking for another kind of handshake like this (minus the Conservative propaganda), but is unlikely to walk away with anything of substance from Harper this time around.

I have been delinquent during the Games, as unlike those who transformed themselves into “media”, I took some time away from the blog and municipal politics to enjoy the civic experience of a lifetime.

That being said, I am now back in the swing of things, and will be posting regularly from this point forward.  CivicScene will also have some featured pieces coming out in one of Vancouver’s preeminent news outlets in the coming weeks, so stay tuned.

Mayor Gregor Robertson has left himself little time to rest in between the Olympic and Paralympic Games, as he has made his trek eastward to Ottawa and Toronto in search of “a commitment to a national housing strategy” and more provincial and federal funding for transit.

Yet on the heels of Premier Gordon Campbell’s government preparing people for today’s budget which will dramatically “cut back on the operating budgets of government” as well as Prime Minister Stephen Harper prefacing his upcoming budget by calling it the “toughest of his career,” I can’t see the Vancouver Mayor walking away with anything at all in terms of financial commitments.

But the trip is significant for the way in which Robertson is graduating from his roles and responsibilities that are most often bound within the confines of Vancouver’s official boundaries.

First, let’s talk about transit.  Robertson is saying all the right things when it comes to an area of public policy in which he has little to no autonomy over.

He understands the trend in retail politics that links transit with the municipality it is operating within, even though Translink is of course regional in scope.  He gets that in spite of his goals for making Vancouver one of the world’s greenest cities, public transit is never something that he can ever firmly commit as part of the plan without the dollars kicked in from the upper levels of government.

He also understands that Vancouver is far better served by transit than municipalities like the Tri-Cities, and thus adhering to the prevailing logic that the “Evergreen Line is first up” is smart politics based on reality.

A UBC line down the broadway corridor?  Yeah…maybe in a decade.  And I strongly emphasize MAYBE.

Gregor is beginning to position himself behind the need for transit solidarity with his regional partners across Metro Vancouver, and that he is well placed to advocate broadly rather than just for the purposes of Vancouver’s benefit.

Which leads me into my second point having to do with homelessness.  I have written before about how Robertson should be leading a national rallying cry for better support for housing across the country.

Once again I am going to reference J. David Hulchanski report from 2002 entitled “Housing Policy for Tomorrow’s Cities,” which details how the “federal role in housing since the Second World War has been…checkered.”

It also delves into the fact that municipal or urban affairs has been something that the federal government has only delved into a handful of times over the past century.

Sorry, but this kind of hands off approach to municipalities – REGARDLESS of jurisdiction – does not lend itself well to the realities of the majority of our country’s population.

Enter Gregor Robertson.

Now I am by no means arguing that Robertson is definitely going to have any more success than the Larry Campbells or David Millers who over the years have been very aggressive in engaging the federal government on a number of public policy issues.

What I am suggesting, however, is that housing policy is a place where Gregor can make real inroads in if nothing else, raising the issue back up to a national consciousness and in turn initiating a cross-country debate.

If housing and eliminating street homelessness is his baby (and from all indications thus far into his term, this is shaping up to be his defining legacy – good or bad), then he needs to play a larger role in lifting the issue out of the specific situations found in every city across this country.

So, let’s see what comes about from the glad-handing and the post-Olympic Ottawa love-in that Gregor is bound to encounter.

Even without the dollars, this could be the start of Robertson emerging as an impact player within Canada’s municipal affairs.