NPA President Michael Davis didn't seem to have as scrutinizing an eye when his party and Sam Sullivan were in power.

It is no surprise that the NPA came out swinging following Vision Vancouver’s release of their financials yesterday:

NPA Calls Vision Vancouver Fundraising astonishing

Vancouver—Vision Vancouver today released statements showing they have raised over $433,000 since March 1, 2009.

Vancouver Non-Partisan Association (NPA) President Michael Davis says Vision Vancouver is taking municipal campaign fundraising to astonishing levels.

“In front of reporters, Mayor Robertson says campaign finance is out of control and should be reigned in through legislation,” says Davis. “Behind the scenes, the party he leads is taking close to half a million from developers and trade unions in a non-election year. What do you suppose these donors expect in return?”

The documents filed by Vision Vancouver show they took $433,560.83 in contributions since March 1, 2009. The party used $241,666.70 to pay off their 2008 campaign debt and spent $181,522.35.

“Residents should be very concerned about what how much this Mayor is prepared to pay to stay in power,” adds Davis, “and who is paying the bills.”

But Davis had a different set of criteria when talking about the donations that his own party received for the 2008 election.

Here is Davis to Mike Howell of the Vancouver Courier in March, 2009 when asked about the fact that “a large percentage of the NPA’s money came from developers”:

“The fact is they’re very interested in civic level politics, so they tend to be the ones who contribute,” he said of developers. “But to me, the bigger issue is that you have a broad base of supporters and that no one supporter is paying your entire campaign, half your campaign or a quarter of your campaign.“

Hmmm…so in regards to those donations, let me ask the same question that Davis does in his press release: “What do you suppose these donors expect in return?”

Furthermore, with 1488 total contributors, and  2925 individual donations, no person or entity was even close to the 1/4 threshold that Davis mentions.

Davis also states that “Residents should be very concerned about what how much this Mayor is prepared to pay to stay in power and who is paying the bills.”

I wonder if Davis was asking the same questions when Sam Sullivan was frantically fundraising for the KnowWards campaign or to protect his own nomination.  The answer is no, as pointed out by Monte Paulsen:

“Sullivan hasn’t answered those questions put to him by The Tyee. And so far no one in his party, nor any of his donors, are making a public issue of what is to become of a campaign war chest widely estimated to have recently held as much as a half-million dollars.”

I have no problem for Davis’ past calls for municipal finance reform.  In fact, I am happy that he is on that track, as regardless of which party is in power, the size of campaign spending in recent years has got out of control.

What I don’t have time for, however, is blatant hypocrisy in the different standards he applies to his own party when in power, and to Vision Vancouver now that they are the majority in City Hall.

Let’s keep things in perspective…these criticisms by Davis are little more than shallow politicking by the President of the main party of opposition to the sitting government.

Carry on with the summer malaise, people.

• Miro Cernetig has an interesting take on the NPA regarding how and why they can and need to get back into the political game for the sake of Vancouver. I also notice that Miro read my suggestions for the NPA’s potential new name before writing the column. Anyways, like I have written in a previous post, without any kind of defined policies for people to attach themselves to, they are going to face an impossible task in capturing back the imaginations of the electorate. It is time for the association to stop worrying about the cosmetics of politics and gain some substance that people can latch onto. But then again, if the NPA chooses to stay the course and remain ambiguous, I am all for it.

• For the record, I think that the notion of renaming Stanley Park is ridiculous. But then again, having the discussion is a part of the public realm, and no one should be trying to stifle such a proposal from being debated. Furthermore, if this is the kind of supporter that the anti-naming campaign is going to attract (read the diatribe to understand how the naming issue seems to be little more than window dressing for some deep-seeded opinions on Aboriginals in Canada), then I am all for a public debate. And for the record, I would hardly call those that put their name forward for a public office that pays $12,000/year, requires long and involved hours each and every week, and encompasses never-ending criticism, scrutiny and abuse from certain individuals obsessed with bringing Vancouver’s ruling civic party down to its knees, cowardly. Cowardly are the ones that cast stones from the outside looking in.

• Jeff Lee has taken over the civic beat for the Vancouver Sun, which is one of the best decisions the paper has made with regards to civic politics in many years. Lee is a true old-school investigative journalist that devours details and puts them into prose that readers from all political persuasions can appreciate. Having had contact with Jeff over the years for federal political stories, I have a deep respect of how he gets the issues faster than most reporters in this city, and I am excited to read his upcoming columns leading into the next election. For the record, public office holders should be slightly intimidated that such a formidable presence is now going to be covering them.

• I always suspected that the Sochi House during the Olympics Games was a pretty impressive attraction – but now I understand why. The excessive spending on pomp and circumstance ($31 milion) makes it seem as though Russian sporting officials gave Vancouver a pass athletically so that the achievement in Sochi in 2014 would be considered that much more impressive by contrast. Having met the girlfriend of figure skater Evgeni Plushenko on the street and grabbed a picture with the both of them, I can attest that the picturesque couple seemed to be having A LOT of fun on the Russian taxpayers dime (they could barely stand up straight for the photo). Seems like a huge boondoggle to me, and one that will have some interesting impact on the results of the next Winter Olympics.

• The fact that other Mayors have got bent out of shape because Mayor Gregor Robertson has actually taken a lead on oil tanker traffic within the Burrard Inlet is petty politics at its worts. This afternoon’s meeting is informative in purpose and far from any kind of binding decision on the issue (because as mentioned, it would be a broader debate for Metro Vancouver to have). Robertson wanted to get him and his Council colleagues up to speed on an issue with huge significance in light of the Gulf of Mexico disaster, and for that he should be commended. Mayors like Burnaby’s Corrigan and North Vancouver’s Mussatto need to pull their heads out of the sand and understand that this kind of briefing is the basis for a broader debate, and that each and every municipality that borders the inlet have the exact same opportunity to receive information – so stop whining, Gentlemen, and get to work.

• Question for Mike Klassen, the man behind CityCaucus.com and a possible future City Council candidate: What exactly was your relationship with Sam Sullivan while he was Mayor? Were you receiving paid contracts with the City of Vancouver, or were you simply a supporter/volunteer?

Vivian Krause considers herself a citizen activist, but City Caucus conveniently left out huge chunks of information about her past.

Yesterday, Mike Klassen of City Caucus posted a piece from Vivian Krause concerning the donors to Vision Vancouver and Mayor Gregor Robertson’s campaigns.

As a preamble to the post, Vivian Krause is described as “an expert on the complex subject of charitable foundation money flowing into British Columbia for a variety of activist causes.”

The conveniently excluded depth behind who this woman is, however, is far more interesting.

Vivian Krause worked within the salmon farming industry during 2002 and 2003.

After leaving, she began to describe herself as a “concerned member of the public” who started to “re-think the salmon farming controversy from a perspective I missed when I was in the industry: the Alaskan marketing perspective.”

Here is an example of her attacks on the science that has emerged in recent years about the harmful effects of fish farm sea lice on wild salmon:

“The reason that I believe that it is important clarify the actual research findings and funding sources is this: If the University of Alberta would publicly clarify that a method to trace the origin of sea lice simply doesn’t exist, that sea lice levels at salmon farms and mortality in the wild were never measured by Alexandra Morton and others at the [U of A Centre for Mathematical Biology], that their computer-generated extinction prediction rests on highly selective use of data and questionable assumptions, and that this sea lice research was partially funded by commercial fishing interests and American interests, I believe that British Columbia would not have the sea lice controversy on which $20 – $30 million has now been spent.”

The study she questions was published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

It involved “an international team of biologists, mathematicians and environmentalists that studied more than 14,000 juvenile salmon on a 60-kilometre migratory passage, past open-net fish farms off the coast of British Columbia.”

The other authors of the study that don’t work from the University of Alberta represent fellow Canadian post-secondary institutions like the University of Victoria and Dalhousie University.

Oh, and did I mention that Krause has worked as a consultant for Millerd Holdings Ltd. which has interests in processing farmed salmon on Vancouver Island, and for Salmon of the Americas, an international salmon farming trade organization.

She attacks environmentalist Alexandra Morton for stating that “she’s an economist in addition to her other areas of mastery,” and yet Krause just recently took a job as a Constituency Assistant for Conservative MP John Duncan (although a call to the MP’s office this morning showed that mysteriously, Krause no longer works there as of about two to three weeks ago).

Much like his Global TV does with Mike Klassen when they identify him as simply a blogger or a concerned parent (as opposed to someone who used to collect a paycheque from doing work in some shape of fashion for former Mayor Sam Sullivan), it seems as though Klassen also didn’t bother to properly identify the website contributor that was intent on being critical against the current Mayor (oh, and by the way, the details of that exact relationship between Klassen and Sullivan should be VERY interesting when they are eventually released).

But then again, for Klassen, it doesn’t really matter who is saying stuff about Gregor Robertson – as long as it kicks the shit out of those who replaced the NPA.

For a more balanced take on Gregor Robertson’s donors, take a look at this.

Suzanne Anton seems to have forgotten about her guest appearances in the videos that she is so riled up about.

So as per usual, lone NPA (Vancouver First???) Councillor Suzanne Anton’s lacklustre opposition to the Vision Vancouver administration is relying on a blogger and potential City Council candidate to do her work for her.

It is a commonly held belief around the city that Anton has failed miserably at providing any kind of opposition to the ruling party – largely because of an apparent fondness for Gregor Robertson.

Hell must be freezing over when I actually quote from the musings of Alex Tsakumis, but I must reference this post entitled “Why Suzanne Anton Should Not Ever be Mayor of Vancouver…,” and more specifically this line:

“But why on God’s green orb she bothers to pretend that as a mayoral candidate she would even have a snow cone’s chance in hell against Gregor…”

Tsakumis posts a notice sent to Anton supporters inviting them to support a garden party in support of Heritage Vancouver, with the special guest being…get this – Mayor Gregor Robertson.  The picture that Anton proudly shows off with her and the Mayor is particularly nice.

In a similar fashion, Anton’s criticisms of Olympic videos on Global’s story from last night just reek of tunnel-vision hypocrisy.

In her standup, Anton claims that:

“I think it is good to have a public record of things, but you got to make sure it is a record of all the proceedings, not just focusing on the Mayor.”

But wait, let’s take a look at one example of those videos profiling Chinese New Year, which features a number of Councillors, INCLUDING Anton (forward to 1:35):

In fact, let me reference an Anton quote from the video:

“This is our greatest party ever in Vancouver, you know, and people get a little serious about the Olympics  – “Oh, what are you doing it for?”  You know, it’s like saying “Why do you have a birthday party?”  You know, you do it because once in a while, it’s really fun to celebrate and that’s what we’re doing right now.”

Anton’s celebrations certainly received plenty of coverage in this clip.

Or how about this video profiling the Paralympic Games (forward to 0:23):

Like Anton said in the Global clip, “it is good to have a public record of things.”  But as you can clearly see, these videos were far from “just focusing on the Mayor.”

Anton was so excited to get another media hit from the work of Mike Klassen that she forgot about her own role and profile within these videos.

Documenting the Olympics in this fashion is entirely appropriate…it was a once in a lifetime event in the history of Vancouver, and the City of Vancouver would have been embarrassed if there was no official records of the proceedings.

Quite frankly, any of the Councillors or even former Mayors like Sam Sullivan would do well from using these videos to promote their contributions to the Olympic experience.

This is yet another story that is going nowhere, and another example of how moribund and vacuous the NPA has truly become.

Maybe it really is time for a name change.