Vancouver parks and rec boss stuns volunteers, says joint agreement is not a partnership

Bob Mackin

Is the end near for the five years of on-again, off-again talks between volunteer community centre associations and the Vancouver Park Board and City Hall for a new joint operating agreement? 

Park Board is holding a special meeting Feb. 8 at the Morris J. Work Centre for Dialogue. Plenty of opposition to the latest iteration abounds. Will the sides reach common ground in time for the Feb. 16 vote or call the whole thing off? 

The majority of the groups that operate Vancouver’s 22 recreation centres fear park board is ramming through the contract — a five-year deal with two consecutive five-year renewal options. The deal would be effective June 1. 

The 52-page agreement reached late last fall says that associations would be required to kick back 2% of gross annual revenue to a new community centre investment fund and community centres would only retain ownership of equipment and assets, leaving the park board owner of facilities and responsible for upkeep.

After a Jan. 28 meeting, a letter on behalf of 13 community associations (Champlain, False Creek, Hastings, Kerrisdale, Killarney, Kitsilano, Mount Pleasant, Renfrew, Roundhouse, Thunderbird, Trout Lake, West End, and West Point Grey) said the latest proposal was unacceptable.

“This proposed agreement makes no long term commitment to the CCA model which has served Vancouver well for more than 70 years. The document provides numerous opportunities for Park Board to terminate the CCA, with little recourse. We will not sign a document that creates such a threatening environment for us,” wrote Kathleen Bigsby on Jan. 31. “This proposed agreement undermines the authority of the CCA to determine how, where and when money, raised by the community and the Association, is to be spent. 

“This proposed agreement provides a dispute resolution mechanism that requires Parks Board to be the arbitrator of conflicts it is involved in and/or policies it has created.

“Legal opinions we have received caution that if we were to sign this document, our capacity for independent decision-making would be significantly inhibited undermined in numerous ways. This would inhibit our ability to represent the interests of our communities at our community centres.”

According to a leaked recording, that Jan. 28 meeting included a key moment when park board general manager Malcolm Bromley shocked attendees by telling them that the joint operating agreement was not a partnership. 

Question: “It seems to be a lot more weighted on your side than ours, instead of 51-49, it feels a lot higher than that at times.”

Bromley: “…the game changed when we moved into a legal construct that says that… I received a letter as of like two months ago from a CCA reasserting their claim to half ownership of a community centre…

“It’s very important to the public interest, on our side, the civil service, to say that, being partners, what is it? You could make a claim to half a building, that you have all kinds of rights and privileges that, it’s our opinion, you do not have. That you’re essential and you’re critical for the provision of programming, that’s what you do, that’s your job and you contribute money to the centre and buy things. But it doesn’t mean we are partners.”

Meanwhile, the Kensington board told park board vice-chair Erin Shum in a Jan. 21 letter that it wanted the status quo. It voted at a Jan. 18 board meeting to ask the board to adjourn all JOA negotiations until after the 2018 election and cancel all scheduled meetings about the JOA. 

“The board of directors believe that the current JOA is satisfactory and should remain for the foreseeable future,” said the letter from Kensington president Milan Kljajic. “This decision was made after the board of directors reviewed the document and decided that the proposed JOA would bankrupt the Association within the first five years of the agreement.” 

The JOA saga. It’s not over yet.

Bob Mackin Is the end near for the five

After fired worker charged, ICBC’s privacy regime faces scrutiny

Bob Mackin

British Columbia’s public-owned vehicle licensing and basic insurance monopoly isn’t saying much about the Combined Forces Special Enforcement Unit of B.C. investigation of a 2011-fired employee.

Candy Elaine Rheaume, a 44-year-old New Westminster woman, was charged Feb. 2, 2017 in connection with the firebombing spree that terrorized innocent people connected to the Justice Institute of B.C. 

Rheaume is accused of fraudulent and unauthorized access of the Insurance Corporation of B.C. database. Her first court appearance is scheduled for Feb. 15. 

There were 19 arsons and four shootings in nine municipalities between January 2011 and April 2012 targeting the houses and vehicles of people connected to the Justice Institute. Last July, Langley heroin addict Vincent Eric Gia-Hwa Cheung pleaded guilty to 18 of 23 charges and was jailed for 13-and-a-half years. Time-served credits mean he will be free in 12 years. 

CFSEU said it “established that a then-ICBC employee had queried the 15 victims’ licence plates and accessed their personal information. That information was ultimately used by the orchestrator to facilitate the brazen attacks.”

A source told theBreaker that Rheaume was an adjuster in the New Westminster claims centre. ICBC’s Adam Grossman refused to comment when contacted by theBreaker. 

One of her co-workers  was Jonathan X. Cote, who was elected mayor of New Westminster in 2014. 

“Everyone in the office was shocked when she was fired and felt bad as she was a single mom,” Cote told theBreaker in a text message. “None of us had any idea what had happened and have basically found out in subsequent media articles.”

Cote said he didn’t really know Rheaume and had little else to say. 

As Rheaume’s case moves through the courts, the public will learn more about how ICBC collects  and is supposed to guard the personal information of millions of British Columbians. 

ICBC’s vast database includes personal information of more than 3.4 million licensed drivers and the owners/operators of more than 3.5 million registered vehicles. The province’s total population is 4.75 million. 

ICBC’s dirty secret?

One way that personal information gets out of ICBC’s database is the so-called Secure Police Line, which is operated by designated employees at the Surrey Claims Contact Centre. 

To operate the police line, ICBC relies on a section of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act that allows public bodies to share personal information with other public bodies or law enforcement agencies, “to assist a specific investigation that is undertaken with a view to a law enforcement proceeding, or from which a law enforcement proceeding is likely to result.”

Officially, the police line is intended to be a way for police to access information on the fly, when there is a threat of homicide or abduction, Amber alert or hostage-taking.

But it can also be used for non-emergency situations, such as when the Canadian Police Information Centre database is down. 

One citizen says it should be shut down because it lacks judicial oversight and is open to abuse.

In 2006, Daryl Cook disputed a speeding ticket and found that ICBC had disclosed his unlisted phone number to a member of the Burnaby RCMP. He cross-examined the cop who confirmed that the police line did, in fact, exist. All officers need to do when they call-in is give a badge number. The operator then provides them access to information about individuals’ drivers’ licences and insurance policies. The phone number is changed every six months.

Cook says it is alarming how easy law enforcement agencies, including those from the United States, are routinely accessing British Columbians’ personal information from ICBC’s police line. They are doing so without any consent from a justice of the peace and infringing upon Canadians’ civil rights, Cook says. 

Below are 582 pages of ICBC police line call logs from January 2015 to June 2015 that show the dates and times of calls, the names of ICBC employees who answered them, the various law enforcement organizations and detachments, police file numbers, identification supplied by police, the call types and types of personal information about B.C. drivers given to police.

It took a lengthy battle with ICBC’s Freedom of Information office to obtain these censored documents. 

UPDATE: Major development! Acting Information and Privacy Commissioner Drew McArthur announced Feb. 23 that he would audit information-sharing agreements between ICBC and various public bodies and private sector organizations. A timeline for the project and publication date are to be determined. 

F246724r ICBC Police Line by BobMackin on Scribd

Bob Mackin British Columbia’s public-owned vehicle licensing and

NPA’s Ball wants to play in Vancouver and Victoria

Bob Mackin

NPA Coun. Elizabeth Ball is throwing her hat in the ring for the BC Liberal nomination in Vancouver-Fairview, the swing riding held by the NDP’s George Heyman. 

Heyman, the ex-BCGEU boss, upset Liberal Health Minister Margaret MacDiarmid in 2013.

Ball is facing Gabe Garfinkel, who was Premier Christy Clark’s aide until he quit in November 2013 to become a lobbyist for Chevron and Kinder Morgan. 

Ball, a Fairview resident for 30 years, said she wants to bring her arts and culture advocacy to Victoria. 

“I would fully expect the premier would win and the Liberals would win, otherwise I wouldn’t be running with them,” Ball said.

Ball won election to city council in 2005, under NPA Mayor Sam Sullivan, and again in 2011 and 2014 as part of the NPA minority. She has more than 20 months left in her term on city council. Before the 2014 election, the BC Liberals gave municipal politicians a gift by extending their terms to four years.

The next Vancouver civic election is Oct. 20, 2018, but Ball wouldn’t have to resign her seat on council. Provincial lawmakers are allowed to hold both offices in B.C., as long as they fulfil their duties. For the time being, Ball believes she can juggle both city council meetings and public hearings as well as campaigning for the nomination.

“It’s only two weeks until [February] 19th when the nomination meeting is, and following that two months until the election,” Ball said. “I will be able to complete my work for the city.” 

Before, during and after the 2013 provincial election, double-duty became an issue in various municipalities. Municipal politicians can hold their seats until the calendar year of a local general election and resign without forcing a by-election. 

Coquitlam city councillors Linda Reimer (BC Liberal) and Selina Robinson (NDP) quit after winning seats in the 2013 provincial election. City council voted to deny them leave until Jan. 1, 2014, so a by-election was held.

Surrey BC Liberal Marvin Hunt resigned from Surrey city council in February 2014, after donating his salary back to the city. Peter Fassbender was Langley City Mayor when he won the Surrey-Fleetwood seat for the BC Liberals in 2013. His former city council opted against replacing him for the remainder of the term. He took leave of absence until Jan. 1, 2014 and quit. 

Pemberton Mayor Jordan Sturdy kept taking his pay after winning the Liberal seat in West Vancouver-Sea-to-Sky. He finally resigned in January 2014. The double-dipper was taking his $24,000-a-year mayor’s salary, $101,859 MLA salary and $15,300 bonus as the undersecretary to the Transport Minister. 

Penticton Mayor Dan Ashton, who was elected a Liberal MLA, spent $32,000 to pay for a by-election. 

 

Bob Mackin NPA Coun. Elizabeth Ball is throwing

Liberals set to blow $51 million on B.C. booze warehouse

Bob Mackin

The B.C. Liberal government is poised to spend $51 million on another warehouse for the Liquor Distribution Branch, theBreaker has learned. 

But neither LDB Minister Coralee Oakes nor LDB general manager Blain Lawson wanted to talk about the so-called Interim Distribution Centre Project and their spokesman is refusing to answer theBreaker’s questions.

Shared Services BC published a notice of intent Jan. 16 to lease a 400,000-square foot warehouse near major highways and public transit routes for at least five years. The notice says vendors have until Jan. 30 to contest the sole-sourced deal. The name of the chosen landlord and the location of the warehouse are both missing from the notice. The new warehouse would be functional next year.

“The province has explored several options, including the possibility of an interim warehousing solution,” Oakes’ spokesman Bill Anderson told theBreaker in a prepared statement. “Pursuing an interim solution provides the LDB with capacity to meet the needs of its customers and British Columbians in a way that provides value to taxpayers.

“The details of the lease have not yet been finalized — we will disclose details regarding the location when we are able to do so.”

By not naming the landlord, the government is breaking from standard practice. Statements of intent posted to the government’s B.C. Bid website normally include the name of the contractor and B.C. government procurement policies stress transparency. 

NDP critic David Eby called the secrecy “unacceptable.”

“In an atmosphere where everybody is asking questions about the connection between [B.C. Liberal Party] donors and major government decisions, the fact they won’t tell the public who the landlord is and where the location is raises far more questions,” Eby told theBreaker. “It leads to reaching the conclusion this is another example of the government trying to benefit a friend. If it were all above board, they’d be happy to tell us where they were going.” 

Anderson refused to say what became of last year’s LDB plan to find 35 acres of land on which to build a new warehouse of up to 1 million square feet. Under the Vancouver Distribution Centre Relocation Project, the Crown liquor company contemplated buying or leasing a site for at least 60 years. LDB originally wanted to find a new site by mid-April 2016, but later told bidders that it wanted to begin construction by June 1, 2017 for occupancy in 2019.

A source told theBreaker that LDB was looking at five options for a new warehouse, but Treasury Board rejected the business case and wanted to explore other options — which may include eventual privatization of LDB. Anderson denied the government is considering privatization for LDB or its chain of 196 stores. 

A search for a new warehouse became necessary after the 2014 sale of the LDB’s aging East Broadway headquarters for $37 million to Aquilini Investment Group and three First Nations for redevelopment.  

The Aquilini family and its companies have donated almost $1.43 million to the BC Liberals since 2005. LDB agreed to lease-back the 220,000 square foot warehouse and originally planned to leave by 2017. 

The area near the LDB headquarters is the focus of a pre-Chinese new year land rush. Real estate signs have recently mushroomed outside dozens of single-family residences for potential land assembly deals.

The government used a new B.C. Government and Service Employees’ Union contract in 2012 as the foil to cancel a controversial attempt to privatize the LDB warehouse. The government had no business case and faced allegations of bid-rigging. Leaked documents showed how proponent Exel Logistics, in its own words, tried to use its lobbyists’ connections with then-liquor minister Rich Coleman to acquire LDB.

Bob Mackin The B.C. Liberal government is poised to