Last week I took a much needed break – partially as I mentioned because of a computer melt down, and partially because of a fatigue of pontificating.  I promised a return this past weekend, but that also didn’t happen because of my enjoyment of the malaise, some amazing weather, and a full slate of great football games.

But now, armed with a sleek and sexy new laptop, I am back.

• Mike Howell’s piece about lone NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton last Friday was very important in confirming what has become apparent: the NPA is desperate for attention, traction, and relevance.  I said it last week, and I will say it again: to attempt to draw Gregor Robertson into responsibility for the terrible gang shooting that happened on Oak Street is about the lowest form of politics one can engage in.  This is particularly emphasized when examining the NPA record of funding police officers, which Howell took a look at, or when considering the $200,000 that the VPD just received in the budget for anti-gang measures, also as pointed out by Howell.  This kind of tactic is in the same vein as Ian Robertson’s complaints about Park Board procedure with regards to the budget, even though he didn’t even bother to show up to speak to Council about the process after signing up as a speaker, and also abstained from voting on the budget altogether.  Empty political rhetoric with little in terms of a political record or current actions to back it up.  Typical NPA.

• Charlie Smith is back with his conspiracy theories.  The entire Park Board budget vote was delayed to allow for public input and further negotiations with City Council, so for anyone to suggest that the process was done in isolation is a complete falsehood.  Furthermore, if Charlie took a look at the conduct of Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon during meetings, he would realize that there is an attitude that is espoused in the form of belligerence, bullying and condescending remarks and tone.  Stuart is not prepared to work together with anyone unless he can get some cheap political points or attention out of it.  Forget about political deals – this is a stream of behaviour that Mackinnon clings to partially because of his arrogance, partially because of his longing for the spotlight, and partially because of his fear of not getting elected once again.  Go ask any of the Commissioners aside from Mackinnon’s best friend Ian Robertson about his conduct, and you will hear about how he creates conflict and looks to exploit the ensuing drama simply for his own political benefit, not the good of the public.  On this issue, Smith clearly hasn’t done enough research about the claims made by both Raj Hundal and Sarah Blyth.

• The NDP has set its rules and date to choose the party’s next leader, and the group of undeclared candidates are scrambling to sign up members before the cutoff date of January 16.  It is amazing that no one has announced quite yet, although Mike Farnworth and Adrian Dix are clearly the front-runners at this point.  I think that the problem with what has been laid out lies solely with the party’s requirement to be a member for 90 in order to be able to vote.  I think that an April 17 convention date allows the eventual BC Liberal leader to call a snap election and put the party in great peril.  That being said, the NDP is very religious about their rules and procedures, so this is no surprise.  The next few weeks are going to be a frantic race of membership signing between the potential candidates, and it looks as though these new members could be the deciding factor in consideration of the 13,000 that are already on the list, which represents an historic low for the party.

• Is the BC Rail stuff sticking to Christy Clark?  Hard to say.  In one sense, she is clearly the most popular with the public, and still most likely represents the best shot for the BC Liberals to maintain power.  On the other hand, she lacks caucus support, and has the chattering classes of the party talking about how her victory could truly open up a Pandora’s Box with regards to the trial that fellow candidate Mike De Jong thought he had squashed through a $6 million deal.  I don’t think that the story is salient enough with the media and/or the general public to become the thing that tanks Clark’s candidacy.  Yet, she has a long way to go before she is able to test out that teflon quality with British Columbians…she has to win over her own members first.

• Innovation towards business development at City Hall continues under the watch of Gregor Robertson, and this is yet another sign to the business community that this Mayor and Council are ready to serve as partners in prosperity rather than a burden of red tape and the status quo.  The City of Vancouver has always had some of the best city planning in the world, and finally this same kind of planning and infrastructure is being laid down for a thriving economic climate.

• Sorry, even for people who are used to big stars and big productions coming through town, this is very exciting news!  I am totally marking out, regardless of who they choose to fill the role, as Brandon Routh is most definitely not coming back.

• The rest of the world is catching up to Canada’s passion.  It is time that the City of Vancouver steps up to the plate to make Vancouver an annual destination on the UFC calendar.  Because as things stand right now, UFC will be unlikely to return in 2011.  What a terrible shame.

Alright people.  Have a fantastic day, drive safe, have patience in the shopping lineups, and show some good will towards others.

This is the way the NPA's membership is being treated by the party with regards to choosing candidates.

For many months, November 20th was heralded as a rebirth for the NPA – the day that the party would collectively choose candidates for the next election.

But due to a lack of interest, the nomination day was only promoted as the first round of the process, with “a second set of nominations to be held in the spring of 2011.”

Eventually, what was supposed to be a day for hope turned into a very limited screening of what the party was about to offer to the public – two candidates for City Council, one candidate for Park Board, and one candidate for School Board.

And now we know that the NPA board has decided that appointments/acclamations, rather than democratic elections via the will of the membership, is the way to go.

The NPA board has received interest for five candidates for the four spots that are available at this time.  The only race that will be decided upon by the NPA’s members will be Casey Crawford vs. Melissa De Genova.

Jesse Johl, who is a personal friend, as well as Bill McCreery, who is a former TEAM Park Board commissioner, will be officially acclaimed as City Council candidates, while Sophia Woo will be anointed a candidate for the Park Board.

Already I have heard people who are NPA supporters saying that this wasn’t the board pulling interference, but rather just the circumstances that they are having to deal with based on those who put their names forward.

On both fronts, the NPA needs to consider the dire signals that are coming their way.

First, the fact that only five candidates put their names forward is very telling of the lack of interest in being a nominated candidate for the moribund organization.  There is no money in the coffers, no Mayoral candidate to base one’s hopes on, and absolutely no interest from the general public in the NPA.

McCreery is just itching to get back into the spotlight, apparently using his superstar blogging commenter status to “propel” him back into the spotlight.  His name being put forward is really not a surprise, and if recycling someone who was elected over 30 years ago is representative of the NPA’s next generation, then the party’s look to the future is confusing to say the least.

Now as someone who knows Jesse, I am not sure why he is doing this.  He is young, articulate, politically aware, and knowledgeable about public policy, so why he has attached himself to such a Titanic of a political entity is beyond me.  Furthermore, as someone who has run the campaigns of Park Board Commissioner Raj Hundal and City Council candidate Kashmir Dhaliwal in the last election, I am still of the opinion that municipal politics in this city continues not to be kind nor fair to South Asian candidates relative to others.  I think that momentum is a huge factor in any chance at victory, and the NPA presents none to speak of such that Johl could reasonably justify his decision.

Secondly, if this was the hand that the NPA board was dealt, why wouldn’t they delay until there was more interest and more competition in which to engage their membership?  Right now, they have boxed themselves into a scenario where they are in essence appointing candidates, not for their appeal or star power, but rather because there are no other options in which to fill the vacant spots.

So, in this situation, why not just wait?  Why not garner a little more interest by getting a viable Mayoral candidate, or going out and doing a better job of recruiting?  As someone who went through a few civic nomination battles, I can confidently say that races are what ensures that the very best representatives become the party’s flag bearers.

If I was an NPA member this morning, I’d be pretty pissed off and asking the following questions of my board:

1. Why are these the only people who are showing interest in running?  Have you not gone out and aggressively recruited?
2. Why can’t we have the opportunity to vote at a later time when ALL of the candidates that are interested in ALL of the slots that need to filled come forward?
3. What are you going to do so that our spring nominations don’t turn into a joke like the November 20th meeting has become?

Suffice to say, Vision Vancouver and their supporters are beaming today after this weekend’s news.

To the newly appointed/acclaimed candidates, good luck and Godspeed…you are going to need it in the year ahead.

Former NPA Councillor Nancy Chiavario was completely handicapped with her fellow vcaTEAM running mates in 2002, largely because of a lack of funding in comparison to her competitors.

From the road, the report that has been released by the joint task force tasked with making recommendations for electoral change on:

• Campaign finance, including contribution / spending disclosure and limits, and tax credits
• Enforcement processes and outcomes
• Role of the chief electoral officer (B.C.) in local government elections
• Election cycle (term of office)
• Corporate vote
• Other agreed upon matters, (e.g. matters raised in UBCM resolutions such as eligibility of local government volunteers to be candidates)

is a pretty decent read.

I am intrigued by the prospect of four-year terms (which interestingly would put Gregor Robertson and Vision Vancouver into 2015 if they were to win the next election – their deadline for fulfilling their promise to rid the city of street homelessness).

But the campaign finance suggestions are really going to change the landscape of how local elections are run in British Columbia.

Here are the highlights

• Third party advertisers should be forced to register and fully disclose what they are going spending their money.  This is a no brainer, and with all the controversy that has befallen Kash Heed, is really something that must happen so that voters are aware of the origin of the messaging that they are greeted with away from the parties and candidates.

• The suggested 90-day disclosure rule will eliminate the ambiguity that candidates from all parties – successful and otherwise – have been trolling in over the past few elections.  The winners should be particularly be open to scrutiny so as to avoid any accusations of impropriety later on.

• The proposed spending limits for candidates, elector organizations and third party advertsisers is the game changer.  I of course worked with Vision Vancouver last election (managing the campaigns of Kashmir Dhaliwal and Raj Hundal), and saw first hand what it was to be a part of a party campaign with a 7-figure budget avaialable.  On the other end of the spectrum, I also managed worked on the failed vcaTEAM experiment in 2002 (managing the campaigns of Stephen Rogers and Art Cowie), where collectively the newly created party could barely afford any advertising or even campaign materials like brochures.  I feel strongly that smaller parties and independent candidates represent an important component of opening up greater accessibility when it comes to the electoral process.  The benefits of incumbancy should be enough of an advantage for a party like Vision Vancouver, and so it only makes sense to limit the size of the contributions.  When Chretien did it, he changed the face of federal political fundraising forever, and parties who didn’t adjust (namely his own) have suffered ever since.  More individuals donating smaller amounts only serves to improve the process and create a more level playing field.

I for one don’t want to see another $5 million election.  The rich should not be the only ones that have a chance at serving in office.

Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon is playing politics with an issue that is supposed to be close to his heart.

I read with interest Park Board Commissioner Stuart Mackinnon’s blog post from last Friday, which levied criticism at an article published in the Vancouver Courier on the same day, entitled “Green commissioner opposes Beaver Lake plan”.

In his rant, Mackinnon accuses the Courier of getting the details of his political machinations wrong, and goes on to advocate for an overall stewardship plan for Stanley Park.

Well, I have done a little digging about the specifics of what exactly happened, and it is clear that Mackinnon is playing politics with an issue area that a) is a huge component of the core principles he campaigns upon and b) is one that he and his political higher-ups feel as though has been fumbled.

Mackinnon’s rebuttal to the Courier is not only inaccurate, but is also without the proper context regarding priorities and motivations. Here is a clearer account of this whole affair.

On April 8th, the Planning and Environment Committee held a meeting where the Stanley Park Ecology Society presented information on a report entitled “State of the Park Report for the Ecological Integrity of Stanley Park.” In attendance that evening was Commissioners Loretta Woodcock, Sarah Blyth and Stuart Mackinnon.

After hearing information in the report detailing the disturbing trend for aquatic ecosystems when compared to other aspects of the Stanley Park environment, Woodcock asked staff to send the report to the Board and suggest potential action plans for the ecological issues specifically at Beaver Lake by September. Beaver Lake, it must be noted, is renowned as being one of the most diverse ecosystems in terms of species in all of Stanley Park.

At this meeting, while Mackinnon did ask some questions about broad stewardship within the entire park (where he was informed about a potential price tag of around $1 million that had to be forwarded as part of the next capital planning process), he voiced no specific opposition to Woodcock’s request to focus in on Beaver Lake.

The report was put on the agenda of last week’s May 3 board meeting for formal acceptance. Now here is where Mackinnon’s political posturing begins.

In attendance at the meeting was Adriane Carr, former leader of the BC Green Party and now a deputy leader in the Green Party of Canada. Carr was clearly trying to get some play from the media in attendance, strategically positioning herself for a seamless interview if the opportunity ever presented itself. It never did.

My suspicion is that she was there because many within the Green movement were looking at the issue of Stanley Park stewardship slip away from them, with Woodcock and even the Vision caucus moving in on that particular plank of Stuart and the Green Party’s public profile.

Stuart raised a point of order against Woodcock’s amendment to forward the issues associated with Beaver Lake to staff for research and recommendations because he claimed that he had not been given any advance notice (which is procedurally correct, but in reality false because of his attendance at the aforementioned April 8th meeting).

As a result, the report and associated amendments were then thrown back to the Planning and Environment Committee for further discussion last Thursday, May 6. All Commissioners with the exception of Constance Barnes were in attendance.

Ian Robertson made a request that staff forward recommendations on other issues besides Beaver Lake that are worthy of action. Everyone agreed in principle. Woodcock’s amendment was supported by the Vision Vancouver caucus, as they argued that Beaver Lake was the most sensitive aspect of Stanley Park arising from the report.

Mackinnon, however, seemed a little confused. When asked by Raj Hundal what the difference between a master plan and a stewardship plan was, he was unable to answer, and passed on the question to staff to deal with.

So let me get this straight…you claim on your blog that “We must understand that what we do to one part of the park affects all parts. A stewardship plan will help with future planning as it will look at the park as a whole,” and yet you don’t even know the proper definition of what a stewardship plan constitutes or entails?

Thus, in addition to Robertson and Woodcock’s requests, Mackinnon has now asked staff to come back with an answer on something he should clearly be aware of.

The politics behind Mackinnon’s fuzzy and evolving viewpoints have to do with his insecurity about his spot on the Park Board, particuarly as all parties begin to look at the second half of this term, which will eventually lead into an election in November, 2011.

If Woodcock from COPE, the Commisioners from Vision Vancouver, and even Robertson when he takes his Mayoral-aspirational head out of the sand, can usurp Mackinnon’s core of ideology and purpose, it is understandable why he is beginning to become a little worried.

On the other hand, on issues that he supposedly feels passionately about, I find it surprising that he is so ill-informed and nebulous when it comes to his positioning.

Obviously, Adriane Carr and others in the Green Party feel the same way.

I understand the political game as well as anyone, and know that getting re-elected is something that is populating the thoughts of all Commissioners as we move further into the calendar year. But on issues where everyone is clearly on the same page about the priorities advanced in the report by the Ecology Society, politics needs to be put aside.

As the Courier article clearly pointed out, Mackinnon has been caught with his political pants around his ankles, and is now scrambling to get back some relevance within the debate.

To do that, he would be well advised to think about his responsibilities more broadly than the parameters of achieving his own personal political advantage.