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.

Tsakumis is at it again, with his rage over the success of Vision Vancouver seemingly running roughshod over the facts.

Here is part 1 for context, because like I said in this previous post, most times that I have the opportunity to read an Alex Tsakumis rant, I don’t stop laughing and shaking my head.

Never let the facts get in the way of a political axe that you have to grind.

This is Tsakumis’ take on Park Board Chair Aaron Jasper’s attendance at the Friends of Bloedel Rumble in the Jungle fundraising event.  He implies that Jasper arrived at the fundraiser and threw his weight around in demanding a discount.

What a load of crap.

Here is how it really went down.

First, Jasper confirmed his attendance with John Coupar, the president of the Friends of Bloedel and whose father Charles was the first director of the conservatory, the week before.

Jasper was told specifically by Coupar that the preferred method of payment was by credit card, not cheque.

The original plan was for Jasper to attend the event with fellow Park Board Commissioner and now Vice-Chair Sarah Blyth.  One was going to pay for both tickets and reimbursed by the other at a later date.

The price for one ticket was $125, and a discounted $200 for two.

On the day of the event, Jasper called Vancouver garden centre operator Thomas Hobbes (one of the key people involved in the ticket selling) before arriving to inquire whether cheques were going to be acceptable.

In contrast to Coupar, Hobbes said that it wasn’t a problem.

Hobbes asked Jasper if he would be attending with anyone else.

Circumstances had changed for Jasper, however, as Blyth had already arranged her own ticket in advance.  Jasper explained the situation, and Hobbes immediately told Jasper that he should still only pay $100 for the ticket, which would have been the price if he had showed up with Blyth as originally planned.

So, as a result of that conversation, Jasper came armed with a $100 cheque in hand, which can be confirmed via a paper trail and/or a conversation with Hobbes.

As usual, Tsakumis virulent and venomous disdain for most things and individuals associated with Vision Vancouver has taken him off into the realm of creative writing rather than accurate reporting.

So as I tell anyone who bothers to read Tsakumis, don’t believe the hype.

I also suggest that showering after the experience might also be a good idea.

(click for larger image)

It all goes down at Moberly Field, located at 7646 Prince Albert Street, between 10:30am and 2:00pm.  It should be a good time, if for nothing else to see whether anyone has the guts to get rough with the Mayor, who I hear tends to bring his rugby aggressiveness to the field.

UPDATE: Kurt has just informed me that Turkey will be served for both players and spectators.