The City Caucus "throw as much mud against the wall as possible and see what sticks" style of reporting has once again fallen far short of accuracy.

UPDATE:  Jeff Lee of the Vancouver Sun also demonstrates how useful a simple phone call can be in gauging sensational yet false storylines.

The conjecture:

“Vancouver’s City Clerk responsible for Freedom of Information requests Paul Hancock, Manager, Corporate Information & Privacy, has tendered his resignation. It is believed that Hancock did not have another job opportunity when he made this decision.” (EDITOR’S NOTE: Crack reporting at its finest)

“”However, it was well known how frustrated he had become working for this administration.” (EDITOR’S NOTE: From another phantom source at City Hall)

“Hancock was on the receiving end of Ballem’s tirades, and remained dignified despite enormous pressure by the Vision Vancouver government to obscure and stifle access to information.” (EDITOR’S NOTE: Where is the proof that comes anywhere close to backing up this allegation?)

The facts:

“City manager Penny Ballem said that the just-announced departure of freedom of information officer Paul Hancock for another job…”

“Ms. Ballem said Mr. Hancock is leaving for a “wonderful opportunity” elsewhere. “He has other interests around FOI that will be a great fit there.”

Now unless the City Caucus boys are calling Penny a liar, it seems as though they didn’t bother to do even the basic level of digging about why Paul Hancock is really leaving.

But why would they bother to seek out the facts when speculation and innuendo suits their purposes far better?

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.

• Apparently Suzanne Anton’s motion from yesterday became a non-issue that got her pretty riled up as a result of a) Councillor Geoff Meggs speaking to the motion and voicing Vision Vancouver caucus support for the release of any and all documents related to the Mayor’s office expenses b) the fact that Anton’s own scrutiny for disclosure both with regards to her own donor list as well as the practices of former Mayor Sam Sullivan’s office is both suspect and selective and c) the requests calling for an investigation into a private contract that has absolutely nothing to do with the City of Vancouver is ridiculous, and was greeted as such.  I certainly hope for the NPA’s sake that future Anton motions have a little more to do with the ideas and policies that the party will try to promote in the lead-up to the next election.

• No more attacks Charlie.  You do what you do, and I am going to continue to do what I do.  But, I would be very interested to sit down one day soon, clear the air, and find out the logic and motivation behind these two blog entries.  Because sincerely, maybe my radar is clearly unaware of what constitutes journalistic quality when it comes to standards, practices and content these days.  A chat over a coffee is definitely something I am open to.

• I think that Jon Ferry makes some very valid points about the conduct of cyclists in Vancouver and the lack of enforcement when it comes to the way in which they conduct themselves on the road.  And as you can see from the column, you aren’t going to get much argument on that front from Councillor Geoff Meggs, who I would say is one of the galvanizing forces when it comes to planning out the biking infrastructure being constructed across the city.  But there is little doubt that giving cyclists safer and less obstructive options when it comes to encountering traffic does indeed lessen tensions between drivers and their two-wheeled counterparts.  And to create and subsequently maintain the kind of peace that this experiment aims to create, cyclists need to understand that they must uphold their end of the bargain.  Because at the end of the day, success for the bike lane trials and the other initiatives designed to make cycling easier and safer for people, will largely hinge upon the way in which people view those that accommodations are being made for.  Now, if the yahoos behind this monthly monstrocity are the people that the public view as the ones we are giving up our streets for, then any hopes for positive public support should be tossed out the window now.

• So the Bloedel Conservatory is saved, while the Stanley Park Farmyard/Petting Zoo is getting axed.  This is strictly a business decision, as the Bloedel has some strong partners with a defined business plan in the form of the Friends of the Bloedel Association and the VanDusen Botanical Garden Association.  It is about time that this attraction gets the proper planning/marketing expertise that it deserves – the kind of support that would make it a self-sustaining entity.   The farmyard, on the other hand, had no expressions of interest come forward from the private sectorto transform the attraction into one that isn’t such a drain on the taxpayer – $250,000 a year.  Although beloved, that kind of a subsidy for the petting zoo could go to some food security programs or community centre improvements that would have much more of a beneficial impact to the community as a whole.

• Rob Ford’s plans for finding savings at City Hall are finally starting to be revealed – albeit reluctantly.  Here’s the question from the above-linked article that struck me the most: ”
  Asked yes or no on several planned projects, including further waterfront redevelopment, his answer was blunt: “We don’t have the money.” That’s refreshing, and it’s true. But is that what Torontonians really want, or do they just like the idea of kicking David Miller in the rear end?”  Because from the budget process that the City of Vancouver went through last year, it can be determined that regardless of who you are, and where you stand in terms of polling and personal popularity, these kinds of cuts to staff, services and programs is not easy to initiate and carry through for a Mayor the size of these two cities.  There are many questions about Rob Ford’s “charm” that will rear their ugly heads quickly as the realities of the job hit him square in the gut after what is looking like an inevitable election win.

• I got some pretty passionate and at time venomous emails from some COPE members over yesterday’s post, which as I read it over again seems pretty innocuous to me.  Their beef?  The fact that I would suggest that the only way their electeds would have a shot next time around would be to maintain an electoral deal with Vision Vancouver – leading me to conclude that they were Tim Louis diehards that are still smarting over the 2004 splitting of the parties.  To those that sent along their messages, let me say that there was no venom intended against your party.  Rather, I was only offering an observation and dare I say a hope that COPE and Vision Vancouver can continue to cooperate, if for nothing else to maintain a progressive majority (and I include the COPE and Green caucuses in that description) at City Hall.

• Yes, we have heard of the internal documents at City Hall that seemed to indicate dissatisfaction with the working environment and the overall morale of city employees.  So, to see that this kind of a survey is now being conducted seems like a really strong step forward, and the fact that the city unions are supportive makes the process even more legitimate in terms of content and potential corrective actions.  There has been great change at City Hall over the past two years – that is a statement that no one is going to argue with.  And, with significant organizational change comes blowback of varying degrees – this is something that is quite normal.  But moving forward, the sentiment behind reaching out to employees to seek out opinions shows not only a willingness to listen, but more realistically, an understanding that widespread malcontent can lead to gridlock when it comes to advancing an agenda.  City Manager Penny Ballem is a smart woman, and is not going to let frustrations and grievances bubble to the surface of her organization so that policy and administrative paralysis can occur.

Ok folks, that’s it for now.  If you can enjoy the sunshine on this, the first day of fall, then go out and live it up – it is beautiful out there.

Shameless political advertising or serving in the job that he was elected to?

There was once a time where famed blogger and potential future NPA City Council candidate Mike Klassen thought that promoting the Olympics and Paralympics, and more specifically the free activities and events that populated the city during those periods, was a top priority:

“The Vision Vancouver Council seem to have had an aversion to promoting the Games since they were elected, so as to not upset part of their base who oppose the event.” – August 18, 2009

“Dwindling public dollars needn’t be the stumbling block for BC and Vancouver to sell itself to the world. Any savvy marketer knows there are a million opportunities to generate international buzz, and we only have to exploit them — NOW!” – August 18, 2009

“It wasn’t rocket science to understand that most of us can’t afford to attend Olympic events, but want to enjoy the party. How come bloggers are the ones making things happen?” – Jan 26, 2010

“Perhaps the best way that we get good value for our investment is to partake of the dozens of free events being staged during the Games. Think of the message we’d send to the world when thousands of us show up to celebrate in our own cities.” – February 23, 2010

“Then, almost as if the light went on, Canadians fell in love with hosting the Olympic & Paralympic Games. The change in mood was so sudden and so ebullient, that it came as a complete surprise to Games veterans. Even Jacques Rogge described Vancouver’s enthusiastic embrace as unprecedented.

Many theories exist now on why it worked so well, but there is no doubt in our minds that the key ingredient was the numerous free activities.” April 13, 2010

Klassen was also a supporter and web designer for Mayor Sam Sullivan around the time that the former Mayor appeared in the ad pictured above, designed to promote businesses who were facing disruption due to the Canada Line construction.

Yet from that point until the present, Klassen has had some political setbacks.  First, Klassen witnessed his own brethren within the NPA turn on their former fearless leader, supporting an adversary who at the time claimed that “a lot of people have lost confidence in Sam” and that there was “concern within the party that Sam may have been taking money for one purpose and using it for another” with regards to fundraising.

And then of course came Vision Vancouver’s Gregor Robertson, whose emergence on the municipal political scene rankled Klassen to no end, turning him and his writing partner into the new Mayor’s “biggest critics.”

Along this bumpy political journey in recent years, Klassen has developed a condition where he often forgets what he once advocated for.  Mike’s Mother’s Day post (linked to in the last paragraph) is a perfect example of this unfortunate syndrome.

Klassen takes issue with a city expenditure of $16,025 on a “radio ad campaign across several stations that “welcomed” and “thanked” citizens for enjoying the Games” and “reminded everyone to take advantage of all the “FREE” activities.”

Klassen asserts that the Mayor’s “invisibility” during the Olympics prompted this campaign, which he also claims representeed a “highly unusual and costly decision to help build his profile.”

In what has to be considered the height of conceit, Klassen also argues that the fact that his website went “viral during the Games” provided another motivating factor to “spend precious tax dollars to remind people to ‘have fun’ and to ‘enjoy all the free events’.”

The ludicrous and self-absorbed nature of such declarations needs to be exposed, as Klassen’s possible political aspirations seem to be the sun that is eclipsing any hope of rational thought:

1. Vancouver hosted the largest event in Canadian history, with dozens and dozens of attractions and events available to experience for free.  Furthermore, the people in Vancouver were the main ambassadors to the world on behalf of the City, imbuing visitors with a sense of how friendly Canadians and Vancouverites truly are.  As such, how can an expenditure of $16,025 producing ads that informed and acknowledged these facts over a period of close to four weeks, across four different radio stations, “useless” and/or politically promotional?
2. In spite of Klassen’s claims about the Mayor being invisible, I have heard from many people that they saw Gregor everywhere.  Whether it was doing regular standups with NBC’s Today Show or any number of international media outlets, touring events and venues, or simply walking down the street where he was regularly mobbed by people simply wanting to say hello or congratulations, Robertson was one of the most prominent individuals in terms of exposure during the Games.  Then again, blogging and gushing over website traffic can lead to carpal and mental tunnel syndromes, disallowing accurate reflections of what is really happening in the real world, off of the internet.
3. Klassen is often critical of City Manager Penny Ballem hogging the spotlight when it comes to the dissmination of city-related information.  But when the Mayor gets on the horn to talk to residents of what is available to participate in, and how thankful and appreciative the city is for the unofficial hosting efforts delivered by the public, he continues to be critical.  So Mike, who else should have been featured in such ads?
4. And if Klassen is arguing that it is inappropriate for the Mayor to be engaging in such advertising at all, does that mean that Sam Sullivan’s appearance in an the above ad to spur business within Yaletown was also politically motivated and against protocol?  The City of Vancouver had to be a part of the mix in mitigating the damaging effects on business due to the Canada Line, in conjunction with the provincial and federal governments as well as VANOC.  The same goes for the City of Vancouver promoting free activities and encouraging good will by citizens within its geographic purview.  This kind of attack by Klassen is absolutely ridiculous – both Sullivan and Robertson were doing what should rightfully be expected of a Mayor…namely, to take responsibility and show leadership with regards to a pressing civic issue or event.
5. Mayors engage in promotion of their city all the time…just ask Michael Bloomberg, Mayor of New York, or Richard Daley, Mayor of Chicago.  Why are these the chosen individuals chosen as the face that promotes their respective cities?  Because by virtue of their job, they are clearly the main spokespeople on behalf of the citizens.  Just because Klassen’s guy Sullivan was diminutive and relatively shy by nature, making such promotion a real difficulty for him, doesn’t mean that future successors should take the same approach.  By contrast, whether it is developing and subsequently selling a distinct brand for the city, or standing by large-scale visions for his term in office (ending street homelessness, creating the greenest municipal environment in the world), Robertson is using his business-background inspired skill set to keep Vancouver in the global consciousness.

It is understandable that Klassen has such trouble with the concept of marketing in light of his staunch support for a party whose best idea for maintaining relevance is to change its name.

But if my prediction is correct and Klassen is indeed pining to run for a spot on City Council, he would be well advised to take a page out of Gregor Robertson’s playbook when it comes to promoting his wares beyond the world of blogging.