Tuesday, December 13, 2022

Learning about corporate communications strategy

 Over on my substack I have been writing news stories about living on UBC's campus. All of these stories intersect with UBC in some way or other. It's pretty hard to avoid UBC when one lives on the UBC campus and writes about living here. A few of these stories cry out for an official UBC comment. Most of them simply involve a knowledgable person who may or may not be connected with UBC.

It took three months for UBC's media relations office to take note of A Campus Resident (which impressed me). This followed on the heels of a series of stories about the local eagle nest and its pending obstruction by a metal cap. Once they took note they became, for the most part, prompt and helpful. 

They've offered statements like the following on woodland fire safety, for example:

With current and ongoing dry conditions we would ask that students, faculty and staff be extra careful in wooded areas on campus.

Recent small brush fires are a reminder of how important it is to safely and correctly dispose of smoking materials and refuse.

We continue to work with Environment Canada and Metro Vancouver Parks to notify of fire conditions through signage on roads to campus.

Of course, anyone who sees a fire should call 911 immediately.

On the campus there are about 40 soft landscape employees who monitor for risk, prune trees, remove dead limbs and clear out leaves, dead plants etc. As there is a level 5 drought, watering is restricted.

Anyone who is concerned about possible ignition sources too close to their space at UBC can put in a service request through Building Operation or call the Service Centre at 604-822-2173 to report fire hazards.

If you haven’t already, I would suggest you contact Metro Vancouver for information on fire mitigation efforts in Pacific Spirit.

These statements nicely drop into stories with  minimal editing. They add information (but little colour or nuance). Rarely, under the media relations umbrella, do I get a publicly reportable conversations. Oh, I do have conversations, mostly me exhorting them to be more flexible and allow actual people to talk with me. On their part they patiently explain to me how this process is supposed to work.  It feels like their biggest concern is about managing the narrative.

The less benign (their words) a story becomes, the more involved they get. I would think all my stories are benign. However, those in the pinnacles of power have a different view of what is benign then do I.  A recent thread of stories on UBC's historical relations with First Nations produced an unexpected outcome. This topic doesn't feel, to UBC, as benign as a story on woodland fire safety or 'rewilding.'

I had asked UBC to offer a statement on the importance of the university's relationship with Musqueam. I had anticipated they would write back with something like "We value our relationship with Musqueam. Over the decades we have had many positive partnerships. We look forward to more in the future."  I thought maybe they'd say something about how UBC was creating opportunities for Musqueam engagement in Campus Vision 2050. That didn't happen.

My usual point of contact passed me on to a colleague who then told me "given the importance of our relationship with Musqueam, we recognize it’s important that the university discusses any public statement relating to our relationship with them, so we’re currently waiting for their input." 

As an Indigenous anthropologist who has worked for decades in community (primarily with my own, but others as well) this response raised some interesting questions for me. If a relationship is important, how hard is it to say so publicly? I've been at university meetings where the current and past presidents and the chair of the board of governors acknowledge Musqueam as the title holder to the lands UBC sits on. I've heard these same people talk publicly about the importance of respectful relations with First Nations. When I've heard industry proponents deflect like UBC has in my professional work it typically indicates something isn't going as well as the public framing might suggest. Who knows what's up, in this case I certainly don't.

I do know that UBC hasn't been shy about foregrounding their engagement with Musqueam in public press releases and interviews elsewhere. The role Musqueam played in the Gateway Building design was highlighted in a promo piece from Applied Sciences, also noted in regards to the 20 year celebration of the Indigenous medical program at UBC. Again, in reference to how "wood is also a very important material for the Musqueam people." And again, reference to UBC's relationship with Musqueam in the naming of five new student residence halls on the Point Grey campus.

In the meantime I've written two stories on the subject (one on history, the other on Campus Vision 2050 engagement) and will have a third (on a related topic) out before I am likely to get any kind of official statement from UBC.  






Wednesday, October 5, 2022

Parsing out the meaning of a government statement.

On my online news page I recently wrote about pedestrian safety walking around UBC's campus and perimeter roads. Most of the roads around UBC are managed by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (MoTI). So I reached out to a district manager who forwarded  my request to their communications department without acknowledging receipt of the email. This is apparently standard operating procedure for MoTI (and other provincial government offices).

I had hoped to have a personable conversation to build out the story, to add a human element to the story in which a real person spoke to explain how their office worked, perhaps even learn about the full extent of their task as clearly UBC is only a small part of their job (which is headquartered in Surrey). 

In my original story I named the district manager and suggest they had 'ghosted me.'  However, after the story was published one of the communication staff called me up to explain the district manager had not 'ghosted me' me but  had followed the provincial policy and had sent my request to the Communications and Community Engagement office to process. I shared with the comms staffer that “I appreciated their perspective that the district manager had not ignored me and that I understood their concern that their intention to reply had not been fully understood by me.” I also offered that it might be a nice idea to have acknowledged receipt of my email at the time it was received and to have advised it would be dealt with according to provincial policy for government workers.

So long and short of it, no personable chat with someone who actually makes decisions or has opperational authority. Instead I received the following statement which really doesn't say very much at all.

[1] Improving safety for people who choose cycling and other types of active transportation is a commitment of the government. 

[2] The roads around the perimeter of UBC's Vancouver campus are mainly provincial public highways (except for private roads under direct ownership and management of UBC). While all provincial public highways are administered by the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure, the roads surrounding the perimeter of UBC’s Vancouver campus are managed by UBC, University Neighbourhoods Association (UNA), University Endowment Lands (UEL), or MOTI (depending on location). 

[3]The ministry works closely with UBC and the UNA to manage provincial infrastructure for the safety of all users. Local residents are encouraged to speak with UBC/UNA for further information on jurisdiction or any issues or concerns that can be brought forward to the ministry if required.

The above statement can be broken into three parts (as I have done above for clarity).

Part one: high level statement of values. 'The government supports safety.'

Part two: a primer on the organizational structure at UBC. This is basic and doesn't add new information.

Part three: this is the key message, go talk to UBC or UNA, not MoTI. Put politely, it's a brush off (see, especially the portion I have underlined): that is, 'If you want to speak to MoTI, go through the channels.'

Hopefully one day I will get a chance to sit down and have a human conversation with the folks in MoTI. Putting a human face on the work that their office does seems something of importance to me. I can indeed appreciate how it is simpler to sit in an office in Surrey and run any discussion about UBC road through UBC and the UBC staff who speak with MoTi on a regular basis.

One of the problems we face as as society is a deep distrust in government and their intentions. This some story is a kind of demonstration of how a government wants to limit and contain a story and they do so by framing it in a bland and antiseptic statement of the obvious (plus a subtextual 'get lost'). Maybe if folks in power were less concerned with keeping tight control over things we would all be better off?


Sunday, October 2, 2022

Endorsements for school board

As residents of the UNA area at UBC we have the opportunity to vote for school board trustee candidates.  On A Campus Resident (where I focus on the story and less on my opinion) I have described the platforms and perspectives of the contending civic parties in this election.  This post reflects my personal perspective on who among those choices would create a strong, student friendly, diversity respecting, pro-public education board of trustees.

You can find stories on the left & center candidates here and on the right here.

My top five candidates, in my order of preference, are:

  1. Zeidler (Vote Socialist)
  2. Brown (One City)
  3. Mah (COPE)
  4. Cardwell (Vision)
  5. Wong (Vision)
Karina Zeidler (Vote Socialist) is a medical doctor who has been outspoken on behalf of health and safety, particularly around issues of COVID-19. But she is more than that. Dr Zeidler represents a tradition of care and activism in community that has been lacking on our school board for many years now. Many of educational policies promoted by Vote Socialist are ones that of our colleagues in the Faculty of Education at UBC promote through their own teaching and research. We would do well to have this hardworking, caring, and activist MD on our school board.

Rory Brown (One City) is on faculty at BCIT in teacher education. He previously worked as a high school teacher in the Vancouver School Board. He was also the president of the Vancouver Secondary Teacher's Association for several years. Early in the campaign I had an opportunity to speak with him about the school crowding issue and left that long interview impressed with his care for learners and for his understanding of what is needed for public schools in Vancouver.

Suzie Mah (COPE) is a veteran teacher with over thirty years experience. In my interviews with COPE on why UNA voters should vote COPE, on the school safety issue, and on the school crowding issue, she demonstrated comprehension of the complexity of our school problems but didn't use that complexity to hide her perspectives on what needs to be done to make a great system even better.  

Steve Cardwell (Vision) became superintendent of schools in Vancouver shortly after my time on the executive of theVancouver's District Parents Advisory Council came to an end  (he stared in 2010). He has since then served in a number of educational leadership roles. I've followed him for many years (off and on) on social media. Every school  board needs a person with the kind of experience and perspective that Steve has.

Alan Wong (Vision) is currently the longest serving trustee on the board. I knew him when he was first elected to the board (I was then a member of COPE and he was a COPE candidate). I likely would have endorsed Alan irrespective of civic party he ran with. He has done a good job as trustee and will continue to do so if elected.

In my complete list you will see my choices include 4/5 One City Candidates, 2/5 Vision candidates and all the COPE and Vote Socialist Candidates.

One special mention in position 10, if I had a tenth vote, TEAM's Matiul Alam, PhD. Dr Alam made his way out to UBC to sit down and talk with me about why he is running, his policies, and what he hopes to achieve if elected. I will be publishing a full story on our meeting in A Campus Resident shortly. He is TEAM's only school board candidate. 

I would urge voters to think carefully about some of the candidates whom I have not mentioned running with ABC and NPA.  As I describe in my story on school safety (on A Campus Resident, Monday Oct. 2, 2022) candidates often use the same key words to mean very differnt things. This is particularly apparent around the importance of tolerance and emotional safety in schools. 

Here is my complete choice, listed in order and format as they will appear on the ballot.

304 MAH, Suzie 馬陳小珠 (COPE)

307 ZEIDLER, Karina (VOTE Socialist)

310 TRIGUEROS, Rocco (COPE) Burnaby

317 SIGURDSON, Krista (OneCity)

318 EPSTEIN, Kyla (OneCity)

320 REDDY, Jennifer (OneCity)

323 BROWN, Rory (OneCity)

326 CARDWELL, Steve (Vision Vancouver)

329 WONG, Allan 黃偉倫 (Vision Vancouver)

Saturday, September 24, 2022

Statement from VSB Communications on school crowding

 As part of my story on A Campus Resident about school crowding, VSB communications sent me the following statement. It was too long to include in the original story, so I share it here for full disclosure.

Hi Charles, 

The catchments of Norma Rose Point Elementary, University Hill Elementary and University Hill Secondary define the geographical region referred to as UBC/UEL. The District recognizes the enrolment at UBC/UEL is unique as a significant proportion of parents in this area have temporary student or work permits. Although enrolment is increasing due to ongoing development of new residential units in the area, to date, enrolment forecasts have adequately captured the impact of continuing development. These forecasts indicate that there will be additional enrolment pressure in the UBC/UEL region in coming years; however rapid enrolment growth is not anticipated. In addition, the Wesbrook site near University Hill Secondary school has been set aside for the construction of a new elementary school as required when capital funding becomes available. A new elementary school at UBC is prioritized in Year 5 of the Capital Plan.

As students get settled back to school, the enrolment for the 2022-2023 school year is still being finalized. Enrolment data since 2011 is posted on our website and can be located at: https://www.vsb.bc.ca/District/Planning_and_Facilities/Open_Data/Pages/Default.aspx. 

 

Maximizing catchment enrolment is a District priority. Unfortunately I will not be able to differentiate the enrolment data between international students and Canadian students before your deadline. 

 

The District works closely with UBC Planning and the City of Vancouver to closely monitor new developments around the city. The District annually updates long-range forecast of youth population based on the birth registry from Vital Statistics BC and the Universal Child Care Benefit recipient data from CRA.  Enrolment forecasts are based on youth population and historical enrolment trends and patterns.

 

The District mitigates uncertainty about the future through a capital planning process that emphasizes designing for flexibility and adaptability in facilities that will be in use for many decades.

 

UBC or the City does not have its own data sources for birth rates, youth population, or enrolment and relies on the District for this information. The District is well positioned to foresee, adapt, and respond to increases in the youth population from any development in future decades. Further information on the enrolment forecasting is available from the 2020 Long Range Facilities Plan – Chapter 4. This chapter also provides information on how the District validates its enrolment forecasts.

 

Regards,

 

Communications Department

Vancouver School District
1580 West Broadway, Vancouver BC V6J 5K8
e: communications@vsb.bc.ca

Sunday, September 18, 2022

Vancouver School Board Trustee Candidates

Residents in the UNA area, the University Endowment Lands, and on the institutional campus of UBC have the right to vote in the Vancouver School Board elections coming up in October. Candidates are randomly assigned the place on the ballot and, for ease of finding them, are assigned a number starting from 300.


You can find a list of current trustees on the VSB web site. Not all of the current trustees are running for reelection. 


Political parties (in order of first appearance on the ballot):


CANDIDATES FOR SCHOOL TRUSTEE (VOTERS CHOOSE NINE)

  •  300 RICHARDSON, Christopher JK (ABC Vancouver)
  •  301 FEDORA, Aaron (NPA)
  •  302 CHAN-PEDLEY, Lois (GREEN)
  •  303 THOMSON, Hilary (Vision Vancouver)
  •  304 MAH, Suzie 馬陳小珠 (COPE)
  •  305 TENGCO, Amanda
  •  306 LEUNG, Aaron (Vision Vancouver)
  •  307 ZEIDLER, Karina (VOTE Socialist)
  •  308 HOPKINS, Heming
  •  309 LITZCKE, Karin
  •  310 TRIGUEROS, Rocco (COPE) Burnaby
  •  311 AGGARWAL, Rahul 羅家衛 (NPA)
  •  312 MCARTHUR, Kera (Vision Vancouver)
  •  313 CHIEN, Alfred (ABC Vancouver)
  •  314 FARIDKOT, Preeti (ABC Vancouver)
  •  315 FRASER, Janet (GREEN)
  •  316 JUNG, Victoria (ABC Vancouver)
  •  317 SIGURDSON, Krista (OneCity)
  •  318 EPSTEIN, Kyla (OneCity)
  •  319 VAUGHAN, Ashley (NPA)
  •  320 REDDY, Jennifer (OneCity)
  •  321 GOODINE, Nadine C (NPA)
  •  322 SOMERS, Gavin (OneCity)
  •  323 BROWN, Rory (OneCity)
  •  324 LEVINE, Zelda
  •  325 KLJAJIC, Milan 夏•米男 (NPA)
  •  326 CARDWELL, Steve (Vision Vancouver)
  •  327 POPPELL, Nick (GREEN)
  •  328 ZHANG, Josh (ABC Vancouver)
  •  329 WONG, Allan 黃偉倫 (Vision Vancouver)
  •  330 ALAM, Matiul (TEAM

Tuesday, June 7, 2022

Game Over: no outdoor basketball for Wesbrook Place.

Canadians cheered when the Raptors won the NBA title. People piled into cars and had impromptu parades from Halifax to Vancouver. Team jerseys were even popping up on residents in UBC’s urban housing developments. Celebrating a professional basketball team based in Toronto doesn’t, however, easily translate into supporting basketball facilities on the ground at UBC. 

 

Almost two decades ago an outdoor half court proposed for the Old Barn Community Centre was unceremoniously dumped by UBC’s land development company.  It took a youth campaign to get a ‘temporary court built away from residents squeezed between an electrical substation and a busy arterial road.  In the middle of the pandemic UBC quietly made plans to replace it with a hydrogen gas station. A community outcry ended in the court being preserved and (again temporarily) placed in a parking lot a short distance from the original location.  

Somewhere through this process people in the University Neighbours Association (UBC’s managed agency that acts as the local advisory council) saw that there was a community interest and desire for additional outdoor sports facilities. Metro Vancouver, the regional planning/infrastructure authority, had a time limited funding to support such community amenities. A decision was made to get the ball rolling (bouncing?). The way this works is that the UNA then requested UBC Properties Trust (UBC’s land development company) create a design and submit a development permit to UBC’s own planning process. Once the permit was approved, the UNA and UBCPT would apply to Metro Vancouver for funding and, assuming success with the funding application build the new (again temporary) outdoor basketball court. It did not go as planned or expected.

 

Almost the minute a development permit sign went up on the vacant lot in the middle of Wesbrook Place opposition began to ferment. An anonymous facebook page popped up outlining the problems with the plan (and basketball in general). An assistant dean put up a detailed personal webpage called Webber Guardians and started an online petition against the basketball court. Late 2021 victory was declared when, on the eve of an election, the UNA Directors voted to cancel the basketball court.

 

But the story doesn’t end there. Once the UNA election was over a new board (which included four re-elected Directors, the majority of the seven person board) made plans to restart the outdoor basketball court, but this time taking into account the ten people who signed the petition and the three delegates who came to the December UNA board meeting.  The primary complaints were about noise, but also about the type of people and problems these people would bring to an attractant like an outdoor basketball court. In redesigning the court, the UBCPT team conducted a noise survey to test the extent to which an outdoor court would exceed the UNA Noise Bylaw standards (the court would have complied with the noise bylaw). They also worked in berms to deflect potential sound disturbances and shifted the siting of the court further away from the building where residents seemed most concerned.  

 

A new campaign against the court quickly re-emerged within buildings close to the proposed site in which three key issues were identified: noise, lack of aesthetic appeal, and disruption caused by people attracted to the court.  UBC Campus and Community Planning held a public consultation that included virtual open houses and an online survey. They received 203 responses to the survey (which is a lot compared to typical responses). 132 opposed the court, 71 spoke in favour.   Campus Planning staff recommended approval of the plan to UBC’s Development Permit Board, May 10, 2022. The planning board decided to defer approval and laid out conditions to be met prior to full approval, conditions that in my opinion essentially made the project null and void.  The UNA board, reviewed their options and decided to formally withdraw their application thereby ending the Wesbrook Place basketball saga.

After all this transpired, I was curious as to what motivated those opposed to the basketball court. The UNA executive officer noted that those opposed to the court expressed some very intemperate comments. During the permit board meeting “inflammatory statements [were] posted in the meeting chat, including comments about there “being a war” if the proposed project was passed.”  One respondent called the UNA board of directors corrupt and without decency: “Have you no decency? Wow too bad there wasn’t 2 other BB COURTS right beside the proposed site!!!!!!?????? This is a mistake beyond comprehension, I know greedy people who don’t live near here want this, but you are going to directly hinder daily life to probably 100 people who live directly adjacent. Oh well! Disgusting. …A corrupt board that decides.” 

 

The UNA’s executive officer noted that “the type of opposition displayed in relation to this project exceeds anything that I witnessed in my numerous years working in local government. From community members contacting consultants directly, to inflammatory and personal comments routinely posted in public consultation forums, to opaque threats of future legal action – the type of opposition truly pushed the boundaries of acceptability.” For whatever reason the opposition to the court was both insistent and, at times, quite aggressively insistent. 

 

After news that that Development Permit Board had deferred the application and the UNA had withdrawn their permit application, I tried to learn just what people had said in support or opposition to the courts. Aside from summary documents available via the UNA there was no way to access the full set of materials that the Development Permit Board used to come to their decision.  I asked to view a recording of the permit board meeting but was denied. I asked for correspondence on the subject but was denied due to privacy concerns. I asked to view the consultation survey responses and offered to do so in the office of Campus and Community Planning, this was allowed. 

 

I was greeted by a campus and community planning staffer when I arrived to view the consultation survey. They reviewed the process and explained the parameters.  I was provided with a print copy of the survey responses. Before I even picked up the survey up I made it very clear that my intent was to write a publicly available article about the situation. I said that I plan to take notes of the responses. I made certain that the Campus & Community Planning staffer was totally clear as to my intents. I offered to share this post with them prior to my publishing it (they suggested two clarifications upon reading the draft: that the DPB deferral was intended to bring the proposal to a place it could be approved, and they didn't recall me asking for the correspondence I mention, but say it would have been withheld due to privacy concerns anyway). Once those formalities were dealt with, I began to read the survey responses. 
 

I read all the 200+ responses. Some were simple “I support/I oppose” type answers. Others, notably those opposed to the basketball court, could go on for several paragraphs or more. 

 

The first overall observation is that there is significant conceptual difference between those in favour and those opposed to the basketball court. Those in support of the basketball court focussed on big picture issues: community wellbeing, meeting needs of underserved communities (youth and teenagers), the importance of encouraging outdoor activities. Some referenced personal reasons of support, but most of these talked about the value for the whole community. Those opposed to the basketball court focussed on the deleterious effects of the basketball court on their individual and family lives.  Here the critique was very specific and it related explicitly to individual and family disruption and displeasure. They also tended to write more on why the court was bad. Whereas those in support focussed on the community value and contributed fewer words per submission.

 

In what follows I will detail the types of arguments made against the basketball court.  I am not trying to figure out people’s intentions – that’s always a murky business- but rather, what is said and how it was said. 

 

Very basically almost all of the 132 responses opposed to the basketball court said they opposed it due to noise. A good sub-set also called it ugly, referencing the unappealing imposition of asphalt in what is otherwise a lawn. Finally, there was a strong current identifying the court as magnate for disruptive male outsiders. Before delving into this complaint in detail there are two issues that arose that are not specifically the fault of a basketball court but may help contextualize the strong opposition from those immediately adjacent to court: lack of adequate building cooling during the heat wave and the use of outdoor amenities in some of the rental buildings by alleged outsiders.

 

Many respondents talked about having to keep their home windows open during the summer to counter extreme heat: “Add music and shouting from a basketball court in the summer when we all have our doors and windows open and are sweating through an afternoon video conference, we get to put up with pounding from a basketball court as well?  It will be awful. It will be just awful.” Clearly the building(s) that some of the respondents live in has had a serious issue (like most of us) last summer during the heat dome. There was an entire sub-theme of complaints that were linked to overheated housing units necessitating having windows open and thereby increasing the disturbance caused by the basketball court's assumed high noise levels. Linked to this were several complaints who describe the basketball court as a heat sink that would cause the ambient air temperatures to increase and thus cause additional hardship. One respondent very explicitly used a climate change/environmentalist perspective to critique not just the basketball court but continued pavement as preferred form of ground cover.

 

An additional non-basketball issue emerged as several respondents alleged the presence of unruly young men using a bbq set up at one of the local buildings. These young men apparently used the bbq set up to hold unauthorized parties.  Several respondents reported unpleasant altercations had occurred. It seems Village Gates Homes (the property manager of staff rental building in the UNA) needs to do a better job managing their properties. This issue was then used by several respondents to imply that the basketball court would be a magnate for more similar (or worse) behaviours.

 

From the information respondents included in their comments it appears that Village Gates Homes, the UBC staff housing property mangers, did not adequate address these ongoing issues. The heat issue was reported in the Campus Resident. Community residents proposed a range of solutions, but none appear to have been taken up by either Village Gates Homes, the UNA, or Campus and Community Planning. These festering issues might help understand how something seen as potentially disruptive could galvanize an already steaming community into action.

 

As for the basketball court itself the primary complaint was one of noise. Several respondents mentioned the noise study that had been commissioned was faulty (apparently there were some lengthy correspondence from one or two community members on the inadequacy of the noise study, but that correspondence was not shared with me). Determining what degree of and type of sound is acceptable is a highly subjective enterprise. I suspect that following close to two years of COVID work from home mandates people’s tolerance of extraneous sounds was becoming sorely tested as evidenced in one respondent’s comment: “The idiotic volleyball sand with the smelly, sideways-leaning port-a-toilet … is bad enough, but now you’re going to slap an asphalt rectangle right beside it exclusively for grown men to run around on?”

 

Many of the complaints about the noise focussed on the fact the basketball court was assumed to draw mostly men, and unruly men at that who would be loud, rude, and frightening: 

·       [basketball] “is not a useful sport for the vast majority of residents. Women, the elderly, children, and those with physical exceptionalities will be excluded. This is essentially an amenity for men, and I do not think that is the UNA’s main constituency.” 

·       “What if they are shouting at night?  … It may also scare off children and teenage girls, who generally avoid public places dominated by loud young men.” 

·       The court is going to be noisy and awful.  … Loud, ugly, gathering point for the nasty, vomiting-everywhere-on-weekends idiots who have colonized the back of [redacted].

·       It’s not just the basketball and taking shots, but the jocular shouts and music and general clamour.  I get … that the culture calls for music and boisterousness… 

·       I’m not sure how much we will be gaining with a large paved swath usable mainly by men for basketball.

·       UBC students or adults will colonize this space. There will be music, people eating and talking loudly in groups. They will play a form of aggressive ball that will crowd out families, kids, and sometimes probably teens as well. The design features seating so this will become a gathering venue. Not just a place for outdoor sport, but a place to lounge and talk and east and drink our of disposable containers. It will take more resources to keep litter at bay, and everyone who lives around it will be treated to the questionable music tastes of the court users. All the other courts have music playing all the time. …  It's a crummy plan.

·       Add music and shouting from a basketball court in the summer when we all have our doors and windows open and are sweating through an afternoon video conference, we get to put up with pounding from a basketball court as well?  It will be awful. It will be just awful.

·       Wesbrook will become a noisy party scene in the summer, when people and kids are trying to work or rest or sleep or even hear one another over the sounds from the court.

This is a sample of the most explicitly and detailed comments about the character of the noise and the types of people who will be attracted: mostly men, loud, obnoxious, drunken, and disorderly.

 

It may well be true that, like most public facilities, only a minority would have enjoyed the use of the basketball court. It may also be true that the noise would have a cumulative effect that for some residents would feel unbearable. Yet, I find myself concerned with the way that men are pathologized in these comments, especially young men who are said to engage in a “culture [that] calls for music and boisterousness.”  The responses consistently position these men as outsiders, interlopers, disruptors, and potential threats. There is no recognition that these men may well be neighbours, co-workers, colleagues, even relatives. These sentiments are consistent with an American pop culture perception of inner-city basketball.  In a previous blog post  I examined the extent to which these claims were imaginary, and despite their recurrent assertions among the respondents, the research is clear: basketball courts don’t generate unruly socially disruptive behaviours from suspicious outsiders (nor do they encourage it from resident players). Yet, the respondents essentially repeat the same complaints – loud, unruly, and potentially dangerous.  It is a shame they feel so disempowered and alienated in their current living spaces that the very idea of a basketball court sparked such an intense personalized pushback. 

 

 

 

Wednesday, June 1, 2022

UNA's New Code of Conduct: the end of dissent?

Reading through the UNA’s May 17th meeting package I came across a proposed code of conduct document.

There is one line that is potentially problematic:
“Respect the Board and Board decisions, and avoid undermining any decision of the Board, regardless of whether the Director agrees with or voted for the decision.”
The problematic phrase is “avoid undermining any decision of the Board.” This vague statement could be used to silence and censor dissenting directors who should be allowed to express their dissent publicly and that such dissent should not be considered “undermining.” I have served on the UNA Board, UBC’s Board of Governors, and currently am on UBC’s Senate. I would state that while each of these bodies have some similar idea that one shouldn’t undermine the effective decision-making process of the governing body, neither do they allow for the suppression of dissent. This particular formulation is, in its vagueness, potentially problematic. 

I raise this issue as I have seen first-hand the use of this kind of clause to attempt to silence dissenting directors. While I was on the UNA Board, I experienced several occasions where staff or other Directors attempted to ‘bring me (or other Directors) into line.’ I faced particular concern by my blog Metro Vancouver’s University Town and live tweeting during public meetings. These attempts weren’t successful, but when such language gets put into codes of conduct it makes it easier to silence dissenting directors. 

I do agree that there is a difference between undermining board decisions and dissenting. The problem is that if a majority decides it is fed up with a minority, then these kinds of clauses get used as a tactical device to deal with a ‘problem’ in a ‘technical,’ rather than, substantive way. 

The one other difference that those outside of the academic realm often find perplexing is that academic freedom (not to be confused with freedom of expression) permits faculty a freer range of criticism of their employer than in almost any other workplace. Academic freedom in our context thus allows me, when I was on the board of governors, for example, greater latitude to critique the university and senior leadership than was afforded to the appointed governors irrespective of the code of conduct the board then had. It also allowed clear and explicit public criticism of decisions made by the board. 

There is likely disagreement disagree on this, but democracy in my mind requires civil diversity of perspective and the freedom to explicitly dissent from the views of the majority on a governing body, whether that body likes it or not. Often those in a majority position often claim dissent is undermining the decision of a board. Use their code of conduct and continue on. No one really fairs well by that. Dissent and disagreement needs to be encouraged. What needs regulating is the form of managing debate – laying down clear rules – no hate speech, no ad hominin attacks, no speaking on behalf of the board without prior approval, etc.

Sunday, May 22, 2022

Another From the Archive: UNA Children's Garden

One of the earliest Campus Resident stories about the UNA Children's Garden. This one from June, 2010.

 

















April 18, 2011.



From the Archives: UNA Children's Garden.

 Alongside the Old Barn Community Centre is a longstanding experiment in collective community gardening, the UNA Children's Garden. This is a reprint of a spread in the Campus Resident of 2016 about the garden.





































Thursday, May 19, 2022

Round Up, UBC, Environmental Impacts, and UBC's Response.


I was walking by the field sponsored by Tourmaline Oil recently and one of the regular staff was spraying the margin under the fence with roundup. They said they couldn’t use an alternative (like acetic acid) since they didn’t have the time to do this every week.

I wonder why it is deemed necessary to have a browned out strip a foot wide under and along the fence margin in the first place, while also noting the evident problems with this ‘safe’ pesticide (see link to McGill research on roundup).

 

I would note that despite the athletics' fields being totally fabricated space (many now covered with plastic and other synthetics) having some margins that are biological does make small contributions to biodiversity and does remediate some of the ill effects caused by the fields. Having grassy margins can encourage increased biodiversity and improved ecological health.

 

For example, grass plants, dandelion, and thistles attract small birds (like sparrows and goldfinches) when they go to seed (which can’t happen if sprayed or cut).  Allowing margins to grow in ways that some (perhaps donors?) find unsightly is in fact beneficial to our overall wellbeing.

I am sure there is a ready answer that will explain to me that roundup is actually ok to use and that UBC has net positive ecological impacts.  I appreciate all that.  Yet. ... 


It still calls  out for a quiet moment of reflection and consideration to reconsider whether a  scorched earth look along the baseball field fences is worth the addition of more toxic chemicals into our local environment, however small these effects  might be.



I received the following response from Kavie Toor regarding the use of Round Up on fields at UBC in response to a version of the above note.

------

Dear Charles 

 

Thank you for your email,  

 

I was able to connect with my grounds team and am able to share the below response from them:

 


Within Thunderbird Park we currently have significant areas that we have limited active maintenance program, this allows and encourages the biodiversity to flourish and these areas are the home to a large variety of flora and fauna. We are also looking at ways we can enhance these areas and other areas within the park to encourage the growth of the biodiversity within the park. For example, we encourage the areas around all our grass fields to be as diverse as possible (i.e. have weeds in them) we do not treat or spray these areas, allowing these areas to flower to encourage pollinators.  The majority of the footprint of the park is still biological as you probably know grass is an excellent carbon sink, that is very effective at exchanging carbon. We also typically allow clippings to return to the ground to provide a natural fertilizer or to composting system for clippings. Part of the maintenance programs also involves returning materials to flower beds and other areas. 

 

We take the use of chemicals very seriously and do not use them without prior thought being given to adverse effects.  We strive to use the least amount of product possible and to use products that have been deemed safe to the environment and within the related guidelines. We currently use Roundup because it is an approved BC Ministry of the Environment product and becomes inert very shortly after contact with the soil.  We use best practices when spraying (i.e. spraying only when there is no rain and minimal wind to cause drift in the forecast). 

 

As a point of clarification the link you provided was to a study on use of Roundup by farmers on crops. This is broadcast spraying that covers all plant material and not spot spray. As mentioned we are very selective on what and how we spray, we abide by the guidelines for safe and effective application and we limit use.

 

Within the park, there are very limited areas that spray is used. The areas include: bark mulch areas under bleachers and besides the South Turf field, gravel areas around buildings, the retaining wall between the baseball diamond and the edges of all synthetic fields (were the turf meets any of the concrete border) to prevent damage to the fields. We try to limit use of herbicides to spot spraying of the weeds that develop in these areas, we do not spray wide areas just to kill grass.   

 

Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our herbicide program 

 

Kavie


My admittedly snarky reply;


Dear Kavie,

 

You did exactly what I though you would – tell me not to worry, it’s fine, etc, etc and gently point to some possible errors or misconceptions in my observations.

 

I suggest sit back, relax and reflect on whether this is really the right thing to do [use round up], even if you can be comfortable in your answer and point to bc approval (which merely allows one to say its okay without considering wider implications).

 

Also, pointing to the fact that the one link I provided was to [use on] a farm doesn’t really exonerate your use, it’s a simplistic deflection by saying the article doesn’t pertain. Obviously, that link wasn’t directly relevant [to athletic fields], it was merely an example of some of the issues and with critical laterally thinking could have been used to consider potential adverse impacts in this industrial educational plant.

 

Let me apologize for not being super clear in my original email. I know that many in the field of landscape arts consider roundup to be minimally destructive and, if used sparingly, to have minimal adverse health effects.  My point was to ask that you and your team take a momentary break, consider some alternative perspectives, not to get defensive and fragile, and consider (since you have acknowledged you are all concerned and seriously great on this topic) how you can be even better.

 

With regards,

 

Charles