NATURE

Sea, land, river

PLACE

Books+

For earlier materials see Table of Contents

Boring Council Mtg

But----

Chit chat public meeting then back to in-camera

But insight into how council sees its job: using public $ for partnerships (see below)

Here Conrad Lewis of UFAWU asks Council for help addressing iniquity of EI – where cannery workers and booming NE Petroleum workers rolled into one category

What happened

1) Question period: UFAWU request by Conrad Lewis
Question on Dog Bylaws by LG (me)

2)Arts Council Funding to 10T$ (see below)

3) Introduction Douglas Jay the new Corporate Administrator

4) NTI (northern Trust Initiative) discussion

(Highlight of evening as chit chat reveals philosophy)

5) Leads to larger theme: Conflict of interest & Council

Arts Funding restored Cote’s intent/philosophy on cutting Arts funding 524K Wav file Cote on Atlin/ Arts group sic 282K Wav audio File	Absent Councillors have to have last meeting explained to them
	Given the Arts Council presentation from the previous meeting (to which Bedard & Cote were absent) it seemed a no brainer that Council would restore to 10T$ --- but part of time spent bring Cote up to speed on that discussion --- he even had Arts council confused with another Atlin terminal Art group ---

Douglas Day takes over Tom Ireland position

Been involved in Local government for past 12 years etc ---

Here is the full recording WAV format of Pond’s telling bio:

565K Wav file --- ends w ‘proud Rotarian –‘service before self’

Thorkelson wanted NTI to be public discussion – Voted down

Pond on reason to exclude public (as ‘Industrial partners need confidentiality)

WAV file 371KB

Here is Pond reading the final motion NTI 188 KB WAV file

To be fair: Councillors seemed to haave pet projects in mind: Thorkelson seemed to have a fish Freezer facility in mind --- and others might fear she would pack meeting w UFAWU members demanding freezer subsidy

More Pond-sense: Public $ and ‘Industry Partners’

Funds to each community; Rupert’s ‘share’ is 2.8M$ and most councillors wanted this to be treated as a trust and not a cash cow to spend --- this has been covered in PR Daily News articles: but emerged from the discussion a philosophic difference between Thorkelson and the rest of Council (perhaps Gordon-Payne only wanted speedy decisions) but others saw Councils role as ‘decision makers’ – that represented ‘Sectors’ in Briglio’s terms--- and that needed no more public input ---- this was highlighted by Mayor Pond --- who said needed ‘Industry Partners’ who would require confidentiality --- gave Port and specifically the 3.5M$ cruise ship dock 444 as example ---- in longer view this has been the Pond approach – 1^st there was 1.5M$ loan Subsidy to Vanier (yes it was paid off – so city off the hook). At that time public was consulted with referendum. Then there was the 3.5M$ towards cruise ship dock (we’ll be paying for this over next 20 years) Consultation consisted of public meeting at PAC. Now there is 2.8M$ and we’ll see how open and transparent the process is --- Contrast our approach with say Telkwa who put openness and transparency as their guiding principle ---

If anyone interested I have most the meeting as a sound track Wav File at 95,326 K file – email me if you want a copy

Previous files on this topic

intro page

3M$ city of funds for Cruise ship dock is elementary economics – PAC presentation

View from the upper deck—Calvin Thompson questions if City can afford Port’s visions

Explores Uplands phase of cruise dock to be built later – by city?

Present waterfront has conflicting “visions” of future

What happens to existing seafood businesses if/ when cruise ship dock built?

Created by LG on September 28, 2006

Last updated on Tuesday, July 07, 2009