Upon a very scant review of our present system of local government along with very little public input, our local governments up and down the valley are favoring a single regional authority option, which would oversee certain valley-wide issues and would leave the present governance formula consisting of our three regional districts in place. However, option two would see an amalgamation of all three regional districts into a single valley-wide regional government.
The public is really the last to know about the details of these options because this process has been left up to a task force made up of only local governments, which call themselves a Council of Councils and they discuss, decide and recommend behind closed doors with only limited public input.
The provincial government has demanded the Task Force Report by the end of March that will describe the implications regarding the two main options, and we’re told then that the process may continue.
The perception of Vernon City Council is that the report may only reflect the view of the electoral areas and small municipalities. Coun. Barry Beardsell insisted the four largest cities have not had a chance to put forward their views. “This whole thing has been manipulated from a regional perspective,” he said.
But it really appears as though the manipulation is not coming from the rural hinterlands but from the provincial government.
In fact, while all members of local governments seem to believe that they represent their local taxpayers on this one, clearly they do not. They are far beyond their elected mandate when attempting to change issues of local governance.
There isn’t one member from of any local government that has not accepted that this is whole process has been brought about like a shotgun wedding and perhaps one that the Community Services Minister and the Premier have instigated, at least so it may appear. Regardless, they have all marched to the table not questioning the process or the lack of fair protocol that may exist.
The Ministry of Community Services has within it a Governance and Structure Division, which supports the work of local governments including issues of municipal incorporation. While we’re dealing with a valley-wide regional district concept and not a municipality, the decisions at the end of the day may require major adjustments to municipal boundaries through forced amalgamation efforts, which have everything to do with “municipal incorporation”.
Here are the following principles the ministry is expected to adhere to when considering a question of municipal incorporation:
• The process for examining incorporation should be locally initiated and focused;
• The decision to incorporate as a municipality must be made by the electorate through a referendum;
• The vote should be made by an informed electorate; and
• All sectors of the community need to be involved in the discussion.
Clearly, none of this is happening within the present governance process. At best, the local initiation originally came from the Mayor of Peachland, whose one-big-regional-district request went far beyond the boundaries of that community. So either he has enough influence with the government to place the entire valley into political transition or the entire scheme was born from a different source. Perhaps the Premier or caucus?
But we really don’t know do we?
To further stir the mud, the Minister in her initial letter set the tone, stating that the present governance status quo was not acceptable, which sets a layer of influence over the decision-making process involving local government representatives who all depend on the Minister’s blessings for municipal project funding.
If the shoe were on the other foot, current provincial legislation would never accept that kind of behavior from elected municipal officials who are restricted by Inside Influence, which prohibits a member of council from using his or her office in an attempt to influence a decision of the municipality. For example, a council member would likely be in contravention of the inside influence restriction if he or she as a council member, lobbied the municipal approving officer regarding an application to subdivide land owned by the council member. The restriction states that a member of council who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter must not use his or her office to attempt to influence a decision, recommendation or action to be made or taken on the matter:
• at a board, council, committee or other meeting of another body of the local government;
• by officers and/or an employee of the local government; and
• by a person to whom the local government has delegated authority.
So the question we have to ask is this: Are any of the people as part of the Council of Councils making a recommendation on valley-wide governance, in a personal or institutional conflict of interest on this question?
Presently, they’re governed by conflict issues within their municipality or regional district. But on the issue of valley-wide governance the scope of potential conflict outside of such boundaries expands to boundaries covering the entire valley.
And then there is a restriction on Outside Influence, which prohibits a member of council from using his or her office to attempt to influence a decision of any other person or body. The restriction states that a member who has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter must not use his or her office to attempt to influence a decision, recommendation or other action to be made or taken on the matter by any other person or body. For example, a council member would likely be in contravention of the outside influence restriction if he or she lobbied a provincial regulator on behalf of a business partner using the municipality's letterhead in correspondence with the regulator.
We must consider that municipalities themselves may be in a conflict of interest as they subject their will as an elected incorporated body onto other elected bodies outside of the mandate spelled out in provincial legislation.
Did the Mayor of Peachland use his office to influence an early recommendation that led to the mention of an “unacceptable status quo” by Minister Chong; or did someone in the provincial government influence the Mayor of Peachland to write the request to the Minister in the first place?
Sure, the critics out there will say that these are no more than conspiracy theories.
But I would ask the critics to ponder this: When we create a larger population of decision-making that is more centralized, we also lessen the voice and influence smaller communities and taxpayer groups have.
Licensing gravel pits, crown land applications, removal of land from the Agricultural Land Reserve, maintenance of roads in outlying areas and even property tax levies all have a different picture when governed by a valley-wide regional district.
This process has never had a legitimate mandate from taxpayers and strikes at the core of the fabric of every Community Charter. The process erodes self-determination and how we expect to govern ourselves at a local level.
The problem that has surfaced now as we clearly see the dysfunction of it all, is that there is a lack of advocacy that insures that municipal governance is not being tampered with by the provincial government.
Historically that watchdog has been the Provincial Opposition in the legislature. And so far on this one, the NDP have been silent, which paves the way for the present autocracy to rule.
Disappointing for sure.
(30)
