New Year's Greetings and Old Year Review

I greet this year knowing that my second term as a UNA Director is coming to a close.  Three and a half years on the Board.  It's a rather short time yet it feels like so long ago when Richard, Shoahong, and I were first elected in 2012.  I recall the excitement we felt on winning election - we really thought that we would make a change.  I can only speak for myself but it would seem to me that we have accomplished none of the goals that we started with.

Three and a half years ago the OUR slate claimed that we would bring real and effective community representation into the UNA.  One small idea was that we would open up more of the decision making processes of the UNA to public scrutiny. All these years later we are no closer to a more open democratic process then when we started the process.

I can take some solace that we finally had a Board vote on opening up two of our standing committees to public observation.  However the vote split 3 to 3. Menzies, Cottle, Omassi (AMS appointee) voted in favour.  Zhou, Zhang, Jolie (UBC appointee) voted against. As acting chair Zhou cast the deciding vote against expanding transparency.  Apparently another consulting firm is busy working in the background to prepare a report on how the UNA can be transparent (or perhaps to suggest that the UNA is transparent enough).

What is so complicated about open decision making and transparency?  I will confess to confusion and incomprehension that anyone operating honestly would have any concerns with an audience watching their elected (and some appointed) officials debate, discuss, agree/disagree, and make decisions. What I do understand is that I have failed to carry out my promises to make the UNA a more open and democratic agency.

As I reflect back over my three and a half years as a UNA Director my biggest regret is that I believed the propaganda. That is, I actually believed that the UNA had the potential to be a real municipal-like agency. Even though I have always felt it better that we had an independent municipality here, I did believe what the UNA staff, UBC Administration, and local advocates like Jim Taylor would say: that the UNA had real potential to act as a representative body. I am no longer burdened with that false consciousness today.

There are some very positive aspects of the UNA.  I have had a chance to meet and get to know (at least a little bit) some folks I would not normally interact with.

As a professor I meet students all the time. However, being able to meet with student leadership in an arena that is not directly about student affairs provides a refreshing and different perspective.

As an employee of UBC I occasionally interact with management, but typically on the academic side. Getting a chance to sit at the same table with folks like Ian Burger, Nancy Knight, Andrew Parr, Lisa Colby, and Carole Jolie is really informative.  These are folks who were at one time (or currently are) UBC appointees during my tenure as a Director. They come from all aspects of UBC's middle/upper administrative management.  Their membership on the Board is at the request of UBC.  It is interesting to here the different perspectives of elements of the vast administrative apparatus at UBC. On a personal level I have (for the most part) really enjoyed getting to know these colleagues better.

As a resident community member it's nice to get to know neighbours that one might not meet during the course of our regular day.  For the five elected directors we get a special experience of meeting residents from different social worlds.  This is, I think, the most positive aspect of the UNA experience.  I get an opportunity at least twice a month to meet and learn about my neighbours first hand as we debate community centre policies, discuss volunteer programs, and try and figure out which division of UBC can best answer resident questions.  Though much of what we do takes place behind closed doors, let me assure you it is a very rewarding experience and a privilege to get a chance to better understand the many social worldviews that comprise our residential community.

Recognizing limits and managing expectations is something that (usually) comes with age. When I began this journey my expectations for what I could change clearly exceeded the limitations of the UNA/UBC structure. The UNA is a creation of UBC's BoG and it's development wing. UBC has delegated certain responsibilities and a small bit of authority to the UNA. Effectively the UNA manages two very nice community centres. The UNA is also the conduit though which a portion of resident service levies pass through to pay for services that UBC has committed to manage and deliver.  The UNA is not and can never ever become an effective representative body with real governance capacity.

As will likely become more and more apparent in the near future the UNA has no real control over anything remotely municipal-like.  Half our taxes go to the province directly through rural property taxes (very little of which is controlled or used locally). The calculation for the service levy is outside the control of the UNA and is set by being bench marked to Vancouver's tax rate.  Major municipal services are not actually controlled by the UNA but are either part of Vancouver (Fire Protection, Schools), the province (Policing & roads),  UBC (most community amenities excepting the two UNA community centres), and Metro (waste management rules, water, parks).

I suspect that at some time in the future 5, 10, 15 years from now this area will be part of the City of Vancouver.  The decision won't have come through the UNA - it will be UBC, the Province, and Vancouver that will make that deal.

UNA Directors' Meeting: Nov. 10, 2015

This evening, 5pm at the Old Barn Community Centre, the UNA Directors are meeting.

There are a number of things of relevance on the agenda (Parking and Car2Go) and at least one thing of relevance not on the agenda (open access government).

On the agenda:

(1) The UNA Staff have proposed some rather significant changes to the Car2Go situation which would entrench a large number of fixed Car2Go parking stalls on Logan Lane, Eagles Drive, and other UNA Neighbourhood Streets.  Staff is asking the Directors to make a decision tonight.  Given the scope of the changes and the direct impact upon residents I am hoping that our Board will agree to defer a decision so that we can receive a meaningful degree of community comment. This is a matter that would have been decided in a closed Operations Standing Committee meeting two weeks ago, but that meeting was cancelled due to the unavailability of some directors.  The fact that it is no in front of the Directors tonight is a mixed blessing  which will at least allow a full open public discussion that I hope will lead to an extended period of consideration that allows effective community input.

(2) Parking rates are set to rise again. The current parking system sort of works.  However, it doesn’t; really work.  Just the same the UNA Staff are again, for about the third or fourth year in a row, recommending upping parking permits pass fees. Staff will say that the cost of managing parking is not effectively covered by the permit fees.  True enough.  However, residents need to be aware that we actually pay already for parking management in two additional ways: through our service levy which is supposed to cover ‘municipal-like’ services and through our rural taxes in which a set proportion goes to the ministry of highways who is the agency with the legal authority over our roads. Th UNA staff have prepared a set of price increase options for the board to consider.  This is again a matter that would normally have taken place in a closed meeting but due to the cancellation of the Operations Standing Committee in October we get a chance to have a full public discussion of the matter. 

It is not clear to me that simply raising permit prices has any bearing upon the parking issues in our neighbourhoods.  The fundamental problem is that Provincial Highways has legal authority over our roads and nobody who can make a decision seems to care to do anything about it.  It’s as though the status quo is just fine.  For those of us who have to live with the issue we know that there is a problem but we are powerless to really do anything about it.  

An effective solution would involve 1) BC Highways transferring to the UNA a portion of our rural taxes that should be used to roads (in the same way as would happen if we were a municipality with taxation authority). A sum of between 250,000 and 350,000 would be sufficient to properly manage and enforce the parking regulations, (2) UBC  getting off their backsides and communication directly with the Provincial govt to have the legal changes made in the legislature that would create the legal platform for the UNA to actively manage our own roads.  They did this before when it mattered to UBC (I.e. When Metro was intrusively managing planning UBC went to the province and the province enacted legislation that placed development planning an management into UBC’s hands). (3) the UNA actively and effective manage parking regulations. 

In the meantime we will continue to limp along with inadequate band aid solutions that constantly annoy residents without fundamentally addressing the underlying and real problem related to parking. 

Take home message: brace yourself for yet another parking permit cost inflation.

Not on the agenda.

Last Directors meeting I was pleased to see such support from fellow directors for the idea of open standing committee meetings.  The motion that I presented was discussed, with several directors commenting positively on it and then it was referred to the closed door standing committee for discussion.  I was not able to be at the closed door standing committee meeting (I as out of town at an academic conference) but from what I can glean of the governance committee report and the agenda for today’s directors’ meeting the issue has disappeared into the bowels of a consultant’s review.  

I am puzzled that the simple idea of open access governance requires an expensive private sector consultant to review and prepare a report on. One might suggest that had I been at the meeting I would thereby be better informed.  However, if I had been at the meeting then the rules of the closed door meeting would have prevented me from commenting on the reasons for why a decision to hold the governance and the operations standing committees in front of our public was deferred to a high priced consultant.

Municipal governments (recall that the UNA and UBC always likes to call the UNA municipal like) are required by law to hold all meetings in which decision are made in a public forum.  There are provisions for which meetings need to be in camera (things like personal matters, contracts, litigation, etc).  The key point is that the process of decision making should be public. If we are to embarrassed, ashamed, afraid, concerned, worried, to say something in public then maybe we shouldn’t say it all.  

But here we are again with one step forward, two steps back and the small conservative step of opening two committees to public observation erased from the agenda. A careful reader will even note that the the motion itself was even erased from the minutes of the last meeting with simply  aline saying referred to committee.  But the content of what was referred was removed from public scrutiny.

Maybe we can try again. But after three years of trying I’m not that hopeful.

UNA Directors Aks for More Pay

At tonight’s UNA AGM members will be asked to increase by over a third the UNA Chair’s take home pay and increase by 10% the money regular directors take home, plus give $1500 extra payments to the chair of governance, finance, and operations/sustainability standing committees.  This would mean that the Chair would be paid $12,500, and the secretary and treasure would both get $7,500 per year. On the one hand the amount that Directors are currently paid, about 5500/yr, is not a lot.  That said any bumping up of politician pay by such radical amounts should receive serious scrutiny.  Part of the argument that has been made is that when compared with equivalent sized municipalities our UNA Directors’ pay is way too low. There are all kinds of problems though with comparing what we do as UNA Directors with what a City Councillor does. The biggest difference is that UNA actually has no real power or authority; it’s al granted to us from UBC.  We are, essentially, a volunteer advisory board to UBC charged with running two community centres, element’s of UBC’s private property (so called public realm spaces) and, well actually that’s about it. After sitting on the UNA’s Board of Directors for the past three years I’m not even sure we are needed in order to run the affairs of the UNA.  In fact I often get the feeling that for some people the Directors are considered more of a hindrance than a help in running the UNA; but that’s just my feeling. 

The pay of politicians is always a problem, just think of the way our Federal Senate manages their profligate affairs. There’s a big difference between the tens of thousands that a Senator pulls down for a few hours in the red chamber and between  he few thousand that a UNA Director gets.  The parallel is that any change payment needs to be clearly, opening discussed, and that those of us who might materially benefit from such pay should not be the ones making the recommendations or advocating for pay rises.

Disclosure: Charles is a UNA Director who will not be voting for upping directors's pay; Charles' views should not be misconstrued to represent the official UNA or UNA Board policy.  Despite having tried in the past not to be paid by the UNA, Charles will materially benefit from any increase to UNA Directors's pay.