Governance Study Funding Application for North Westside Receives RDCO Board Approval

The application for funding for the North Westside request for a Governance Study to the Ministry of Community, Sport & Culture has received RDCO Board approval in a 9-3 decision.

As usual the Morning Star and KISSFM, both Vernon based media, have stepped up and provided the North Westside Community with coverage for this important local issue. The Vernon Morning Star has also included an Editorial Opinion as well as the news article.

The two major concerns on this process as expressed to me by the North Westside residents are:

  1. The limitations to the scope of the Study. Why does the Board insist upon supporting Staff Recommendations in the face of the elected representatives objections to this premature decision on Scope. Listen to the audio. There are only two possible outcomes on a Study they are Status Quo – remain as we are an Electoral Area whose present and future governance is determined by politicians elected elsewhere or move forward to incorporation. How can you remove one of the two possible options without the benefit of the Study intended to address the issues in the first place?
  2. Community involvement … or lack thereof. How do you address the prime community issue … lack of involvement by the community in their “Local Affairs” by excluding them from the process?

These two concerns and how they were handled are all on public record on the RDCO Web Site. I have included my links to the audio from these meeting for the full Board Audio of the meetings go the RDCO Agenda Page pick the year then go to the meeting date and select the audio file.


Selected Relevant Audio Clips from Jan 12 2017 RDCO Board Meeting

6.1 North Westside Governance Study – Letter of Application

9.1 Wilson Landing Community Boat Launch

9.2 Crown Land Application – E.A. West Proposed Brigade Trail

Audit Committee – No EA Representation

Dec 12 Item 7.5 NW Governance Resolution Audio

Nov 28 Ministry Presentation to RDCO Board Audio


This is the email and response to and from the CAO on the DRAFT 6.1 Letter of Application that I sent prior to the Jan 12 Meeting. This email best expresses both the RDCO and my position on the Study Funding Application Letter passed from the Draft Form submitted with no changes.

Good Morning CAO Reardon,

I have read the Draft Letter of Application – Governance Study Review and have input I would like you to consider in light of our conversation and reset decision for future relationship building as discussed at the last Director/CAO Monthly meeting.

  • First paragraph – I feel that inadequate history has been used to decide the bill back policy for the “in kind” cost component of the Study. In light of Marilyn’s remarks at the last Board Meeting (no data on Lake Country and West Kelowna as normal course of business) I feel the decision currently is premature and unfair. I have spoken to the Thornhill representative and found that in their Study these charges were borne by the entire RD as it was seen as a RD initiative as is ours. I have contacted the Ministry and requested a list of other areas where these studies have been conducted in the last 1.5 years to find out how “in-kind” was billed in other areas. As I stated in many meetings if these charges are truly the responsibility of the area requesting the study, fair enough but there is no evidence on record now showing this to be the path most traveled and regardless costs are not currently exclusive to the area being Studied. The current resolution wording places the cost on the entire electoral area and I for reasons previously stated cannot support that as it puts me in a conflict of interest with different areas within EA West. Can the part of the sentence after “certain conditions” be removed? We have plenty of time to determine who will pay these costs prior to any “in-kind” billing as we develop the Terms of Reference and contract an independent consultant. This will go a long way to lessen the animosity this issue has brought to the discussion and allow us to move forward in a more united way.
  • Scope – I would like the words “within the existing regional district electoral area framework” removed from the statement of scope. I feel this part of the statement will be seen within the NW Community as an unacceptable limiting factor imposed by the very organizational structure that is the main focus of the Governance Study. It will be hard to convince an already skeptical community that an open and honest process is being conducted looking at all possible solutions available under legislation with this obvious restriction in place. Can this not be left for clarification in the Terms of Reference or preferably by the Study itself and/or the independent consultant with community input through a citizens committee as we discussed at the Monthly Meeting.
  • Particular Preferences – As I have discussed with you at the Monthly Meeting and on many occasions before the Board I want “the Area Director” to be included in the development of the Terms of Reference with the RDCO and Ministry Staff. How do you convince a community that their voice is heard and means something if their elected representative is not directly involved?

Please give consideration to these recommendations as they are made in the spirit of our latest agreement to work on rebuilding a more trusting relationship for the betterment of all sitting at and around the Board Table and the people we represent. I feel these changes are in keeping with the direction and spirit we discussed and will help eliminate or lessen the animosity during debate on this application. At this point debate on this application can only be a preliminary discussion without the Study data on the issues that this Study is intended to resolve. In my opinion it would be best to submit the application and move the process to the next stage where we would have the terms of reference, possibly the independent consultant in place and study data to debate and make an informed decision on.

I am available anytime to discuss further any of the items I have brought forward here.

The Response I received after the Jan 12 Meeting:

Director Carson,

Thank you for your email.  After yesterday’s Board Meeting I explained that I had been off work sick for the previous 2 days and hadn’t had an opportunity to read and respond to your email.

Notwithstanding the fact that this matter was dealt with by the Board I still wish to respond to your email.  Firstly, your first bullet point deals with a Board matter that was decided on December 12th, 2016 when the Board approved the following resolution:

THAT should the Board support a governance study for the North Westside Fire Protection Service Area the following conditions be met:

  1. all staff time, unforeseen consulting fees, and associated costs of the governance study will be tracked and allocated to Electoral Area Administration for Central Okanagan West;
  2. the study scope, objectives and terms of reference to receive Board approval.

I did make a commitment to explore other options to allocate these costs just to the proposed service area however staff hasn’t found another method that meets the requirements of the local government act.  The Act states requires regional districts to allocate expenses only to the service(s) that have the authority to provide that service.  As explained in our January 5th meeting the Fire Service does not provide the authority to pay for a governance review study or service reviews that aren’t specific to that service.  To conclude on this point I have received direction from the Board on this matter which I am obligated to carry out and will carry out to the best of my ability.

Your second bullet refers to wording that comes from Minister Fassbender.  My report to the Board and my decision to use Minister Fassbender’s words is deliberate.  The “Draft” letter of application is for grant funding and it is important to use wording that reflects what the Minister has stated he is prepared to support.  The final wording in the draft letter requires Board approval and as such you have an opportunity to raise your concerns at the Board table which you did.  As the EA Director you should be explaining that the words you feel the NW Community Association may consider unacceptable are the words coming from Minister Fassbender. In response to your question at the end of your second bullet I would say no, I would not support the words you reference being removed from the scope of the study.  I wish to point out that the Board has determined that the study scope, objectives and terms of reference shall require Board approval.  My role is to advise the Board, make recommendations when requested and follow direction given by the Board.  I will continue to execute the duties of my office to the best of my ability.  To conclude on this point I view your request as a political issue and you need to raise it with the Board of Directors at a duly convened public meeting.

Your third bullet pertains to your involvement in the development of the Terms of Reference for the governance review study and/or service review.  Discussion on this point is premature.  We should wait for a response to our grant funding request before addressing this point.  That said, I refer to the December 12th Board resolution captioned in red above stating the terms of reference for this governance review study shall be approved by the Board.  As CAO, I have a duty to ensure the Board’s direction is carried out.  As indicated at yesterday’s Board meeting the report to the Board dealing with the terms of reference for this study will address all issues pertaining to this matter.  To answer your question in the third bullet I would suggest your ‘direct involvement’ will be providing comments to the Board on the draft terms of reference or in another manner determined by the Board.  To conclude on this point I view your request as a political issue and you should raise it with the Board of Directors at a duly convened public meeting when the report comes forward.

Lastly, your concluding paragraph speaks to rebuilding a more trusting relationship for the betterment of all sitting at and around the Board table.  In our January 5th meeting we spoke about hitting the reset button on the relationship.  I differentiated hitting the reset button on our working relationship and your working relationship with the Regional Board.  It is important that you understand my role and responsibilities moving forward as many of the points you raise in your email are political issues that are out of my jurisdiction and authority.

Most importantly Director Carson, hitting the reset button on our working relationship does not mean I will change the wording in my reports to the Board when you request it.  That is unreasonable and inappropriate.  What I am open to is discussing your issues ahead of time so I can advise you what the legislative and statutory requirements are so when you debate issues at the Board table you are operating within the legislative framework that we are bound to.

I hope this email addresses all of the points in your email.  I would be pleased to meet to further explain any of my responses.

Respectfully,

Brian Reardon

Chief Administrative Officer


 

 

 

Related Posts

No Comments Yet.

leave a comment