Exclusive: Park Board steamrolling ahead with eviction, say six dissenting associations

Court documents filed by Vancouver’s six dissenting community centre associations say the Park Board is proceeding to “evict” them before the court has decided on their bid for an injunction to stop the OneCard.

Controversial OneCard

The Park Board terminated Joint Operating Agreements on Aug. 29 with volunteer boards at Hastings, Kensington, Kerrisdale, Killarney, Riley Park Hillcrest and Sunset community centres effective year-end. That was in reaction to the Aug. 20 filing of a B.C. Supreme Court petition aimed at blocking the citywide imposition of the OneCard membership system. The six associations, who are fighting the Park Board plan to centralize control of the 22 community centres, say they have a right to sell their own memberships. 

Justice Bruce Cohen reserved judgment after the Sept. 17-18 hearing. 

The six associations now say the Vision Vancouver-controlled Park Board is looking for other not-for-profit groups to replace them and staff transition teams have been formed to prepare for the Jan. 1, 2014 Park Board takeover.

The Oct. 15 court filing by Dean Davison, the lawyer for the six community associations, says the community associations have invested millions of dollars into the community centres and the programs “and as a result have legal ownership of a great deal of property and assets at the community centres." The six associations want the court to declare the community centres are "held on constructive trust by the Park Board for the plaintiffs."

"The Park Board is also currently taking steps to take over the programs on Jan. 1, 2014 when ownership of the copyrighted material (in the brochures which promote the programs) and the decades of goodwill is still a matter that must be dealt with by the court," according to the association's filings.

The plaintiffs applied Oct. 4 for an injunction to stop the Park Board from terminating the Joint Operating Agreements with the community associations and a declaration that the Joint Operating Agreements remain in effect and an interim injunction forcing the Park Board to perform its obligations under the JOAs.

A three-day hearing is scheduled for Oct. 22, but Park Board wants it adjourned to Nov. 18. 

The filing by city lawyer Jason Twa claims: "The Park Board has taken no steps to interfere with the plaintiffs joint operation of community centres during the currency of the JOAs, notwithstanding that it has issued notices of termination. Until the terminations of the JOAs are effective the Park Board continues to jointly operate community centres with the plaintiffs."

Twa claims more time is needed to prepare a defence because park board and civic archives must be searched for documents dating back to the 1930s about "historic financial and other contributions that the plaintiffs have made to the development, construction and renovation of community centres and related facilities dating as far back as the 1930s." 

"It will be a considerable undertaking for the Park Board to search for, locate, review and gather such documents," according to the Park Board filing.

Meanwhile, only two-and-a-half months remain until Jan. 1, 2014. 

Park Ranger keeps mind nimble amid OneCard kerfuffle

Below are photographs of a Vancouver Park Ranger passing time with a skill-testing newspaper crossword puzzle.

Vancouver Park Rangers are normally busy in summertime helping visitors enjoy the city's parks. Ambassadors of the flora and fauna.

Synonym for controversy...

That is not the photograph of a lazy Park Ranger. The proper word is bored. For this new assignment -- to be the eyes and ears of the Vision Vancouver dominated Board of Parks and Recreation at a half-dozen rebel community centres -- at least one Park Ranger became a modern equivalent of the Maytag Man.

This Park Ranger has been assigned to a community centre to intervene in a dispute and perform a job that he may actually not be licensed to perform. This is what the Park Rangers are qualified to do. Notice the lack of the word "security."

My source told me the photograph was shot the morning of Sept. 3 at Kensington Community Centre.

Kensington is one of the six community centres run by volunteer associations that are refusing to submit to Vancouver city hall's centralization of power and imposition of the OneCard universal access card. The other 16 community associations are toeing the line.

The rebel six pack of community centre associations filed this B.C. Supreme Court lawsuit against City of Vancouver on Aug. 20. City of Vancouver replied with this news release on Aug. 22. The six associations were notified a week later by the Park Board that their joint operating agreements will be cancelled on Dec. 31, 2013. Park Rangers were then deployed to keep an eye on things.

On Sept. 4, I sent a list of questions to Park Board Chair Sarah Blyth and general manager Malcolm Bromley, to find out more about the deployment of Park Rangers. Neither Blyth nor Bromley responded with answers, but I am hoping that this will spur them into action. Because you deserve to know.

I want to find out how many Park Rangers are being deployed to these community centres and at what cost to Vancouverites. I am also curious about the qualifications of the Park Rangers: Is it true that the Board of Parks and Recreation does not require Park Rangers to hold a provincial security licence under the Security Services Act, even though the services they provide include security? This job ad says Park Ranger candidates require a driver's licence and first aid certificate. A Grade 12 education is desired. Pay begins at $23 an hour. Not too shabby. Under B.C. law, workers have the right to refuse unsafe work.

The Park Rangers are members of CUPE local 15, but president Leanne Toderian and city sector representative Dierdre Bradshaw did not respond either. 

This is an open invitation to Blyth, Bromley and CUPE local 15 to have their responses published here. 

Also, if you're a Vancouver Park Ranger, please contact me confidentially. 

UPDATE (Sept. 9): Blyth did not respond, but vice-chair Aaron Jasper did. He said Park Ranger deployment to the six dissident community centres was mandated by general manager Malcolm Bromley after incidents on Aug. 20 and 23 at a community centre that Jasper refused to name. Jasper also refused to tell me how much this is costing Vancouverites.

"In one of the instances the general manager had to intervene and the person was actually escorted off the property by a Vancouver Police officer. and subsequently to that incident a WorkSafeBC investigation was initiated because of a staff complaint of potential harassment and threats to their ability to perform their work," Jasper said. "We have an obligation to provide a safe and supportive working environment. The politics and the disagreement between the associations and the park board is not an excuse for members of the public or association executive members to harass our staff, we make no apologies, I support the general manager's decision to have a park ranger on site."

VPD spokesman Const. Brian Montague confirmed there was an incident on Aug. 23 at Hillcrest Community Centre. "There was no allegation of an assault and no evidence indicating that one had occurred. The matter was resolved without charges." 

Riley Park/Hillcrest Community Association president Jesse Johl said he witnessed Hillcrest recreation supervisor Peter Fox wave his finger in association treasurer Todd Constant's face. Johl said Constant has been "on top" of the community centre's finances "to the point where we account for everything and as a lot of questions and staff don't like it." 

Bromley attended and told Constant he would be banned from the community centre. Constant reminded the general manager that there was a joint operating agreement between the parties and that he had no authority to ban community centre association executives from the community centre. Johl said the police officer who attended, Const. Savage, did not escort anyone away. 

"There was only one witness to the entire event, that was me," Johl said. "Todd was not being abusive, Todd was not being aggressive."

But back to the question about the Park Rangers' qualifications. 

Jasper admitted they're not required to be security-certified, but they are deployed "to help assure, there is a safe, secure work environment for our staff." 

"You're sort of fixating on that aspect, in my mind the issue here is why did the park board general manager feel compelled to take this action," Jasper said. 

"Our park rangers do go through conflict resolution training, they're out there in the public dealing with potentially very volatile situations…. they know what their limits are, so if it's a situation they deem requires a backup they get on the phone, they contact the police.   

"I'm confident they have adequate training. If our park rangers are qualified enough to be out there in the summer months in all sorts of instances across our park system, surely they're OK to be sitting in the lobby of a community centre just monitoring, making sure everyone is conducting themselves respectfully."

The last word goes to the Security Services Act, which states, in Section 2: 

"An individual must not engage in any kind of security work, or hold himself or herself out to be so employed or employable, unless the individual holds a valid security worker licence for that kind of security work."  

Hey, Ray! Waddaya say?

Open Letter to Coun. Raymond Louie (Chairman, Pacific National Exhibition):

Hope you’re having a fun and relaxing summer. Certainly you’ll be having fun at the 103rd Pacific National Exhibition Fair until Labour Day. Glad that gate admission and parking are cheaper by 20%, so more people can afford to go. It's not often that Vision Vancouver gives vehicle drivers a discount.

Sorry to hear that it’ll be closed on the first and second Mondays, but let’s hope those are the only days that rain falls in East Vancouver. 

This will be the fifth fair since Mayor Gregor Robertson and the rest of your Vision Vancouver majority mates decided to install you as the chairman of the PNE board. A controversial decision from May 2009.

On Aug. 1, city council voted 8-2 to refine the governance model for Hastings Park and the PNE. You voted in the majority. It seems like a Vancouver pastime to debate the governance of the PNE. Council opted not to make Hastings Park and the PNE a department of city hall or shift responsibility for governance to the Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation -- even though the Park Board said it was ready, willing and able. Citizens groups (like the Hastings Park Conservancy and Friends of Hastings Park) wanted the Park Board to take over, but it won't. So you’ll be chairman for the foreseeable future. 

I emailed you a couple of questions on Aug. 1 and called your office and left a voice mail the next day. I haven’t heard back from you about your role in that governance decision. You were in the council chamber, participated in the discussion and voted. 

Minutes of the meeting show that you moved the motion on the staff recommendation:

Chairman Ray

A. THAT Council adopt the implementation plan outlined in the Administrative Report dated June 18, 2013, entitled “Hastings Park/PNE Governance Review”, for a new governance structure for Hastings Park and the Pacific National Exhibition (PNE). 

B. THAT Council approve funding for consultants, needed to support and resource the implementation plan set out in the Administrative Report dated June 18, 2013, entitled “Hastings Park/PNE Governance Review”, to a maximum of $80,000; source of funding to be the Hastings Park Reserve.

You voted with the majority against Green Coun. Adriane Carr’s amendments, including one that proposed giving Park Board the reins of power. Ultimately, you also voted with the majority to adopt the staff recommendation. It was passed by an 8-2 margin. You remain the PNE chairman.

I notice that the Vancouver Charter, which is the provincial law that governs the City of Vancouver, contains sections 145.2 (Disclosure of conflict) and 145.3 (Restrictions on participation if in conflict). 

In a nutshell, the charter says a council member must declare any direct or indirect pecuniary interest in a matter or another interest in a matter that constitutes a conflict of interest. He or she must leave the meeting while the matter is under consideration, and not participate in any discussion, vote or otherwise attempt in any way to influence the vote. 

Since you are both an elected councillor and the appointed chair of the PNE, did you ask for or receive legal advice from the city solicitor that allowed you to participate and vote? If so, what was the conclusion? The minutes don’t reflect that you made a declaration of your PNE chairmanship and you certainly didn't leave the council chamber. 

Neither city clerk Janice MacKenzie nor city solicitor Francie Connell responded to my query earlier this month. I’m hoping you will. I’d gladly publish it here. 

Sincerely,

Bob Mackin

P.S. I notice the 2011 annual report is on the PNE website, but where is the 2012 annual report? We're well past the halfway point of 2013.

Another city staffer finds greener pastures

Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation is losing its second in command.

Deputy General Manager Peter Kuran's resignation was announced July 18 (see the email below). Kuran was Director of the Stanley District from January 2008 until October 2010 when he was promoted to Deputy GM.

No word yet on a replacement... or if there will be one. As more power is centralized in city hall, some insiders wonder whether Canada's only elected park department will be made redundant in years to come.

From: Boomhower, Pat On Behalf Of Bromley, Malcolm
Sent: Thursday, July 18, 2013 4:40 PM
To: Park Board Commissioners - DL; Corporate Management Team (COV) - DL; PB All Staff (COV) - DL
Subject: Staff Announcement

Dear Colleagues,

I am writing to announce that Peter Kuran is moving on.  It is with deep appreciation and recognition of the excellent work Peter has done at the Park  Board since 2008. Peter has been selected as the CEO of External Properties for the University of Victoria. This is a wonderful opportunity for Peter and his wife Kim and daughter Loren.

We will all miss Peter' s sense of humour and respectful  approach to managing issues. On a personal note I want to thank Peter for providing me with unwavering support and loyalty. He is a true gentleman and consummate professional.

We will be hosting Peter and his family at a going away celebration   Details to follow.


Malcolm

--------------------
Malcolm Bromley
General Manager
Vancouver Board of Parks and Recreation
2099 Beach Avenue, Vancouver, BC, V6G 1Z4

Thoughts on Penny

Who really is running Vancouver city hall?

The twice-elected Mayor is Gregor Robertson, the tuba-playing, bike-riding, organic-farming former NDP MLA who finally sold his holdings in Happy Planet Juice Co. in late 2012. Skeptics wonder if one of his lieutenants, Coun. Geoff Meggs, is really shifting the gears on the 10-speed behind the scenes. 

Penny Ballem: unelected and uncompromising?

City manager Penny Ballem is the top-paid civic employee, at $334,002 for 2011. She was hired, without competition, to replace the fired Judy Rogers in December 2008. Rogers got a $572,000 golden parachute, because the Vision Vancouver administration felt she was an NPA-loyalist. 

It wasn’t the first time Ballem got a no-bid gig. She did 78 hours work for $30,000 from eHealth Ontario. 

Ballem’s claim to fame was as deputy minister of health for five years under then-Premier Gordon Campbell. Health is the biggest and most complex ministry in government. She quit in 2006, calling Campbell’s plans for the ministry “unsound.”

Not only did Ballem replace Rogers in the city manager’s office, but she also took her seat on the  board of directors for the Vancouver 2010 Winter Olympics organizing committee, better known as VANOC.

Ballem was involved in city hall's $2.3 million purchase of used furniture and computers from VANOC. VANOC also got free rent in the city-owned 3585 Graveley Street “Campus 2010” after the Games. Ballem also signed-off on the transfer of VANOC files to the City Archives, mandating they be kept secret from the public until 15 years after the Games! The International Olympic Committee required the City Archives take it over, as per the host city agreement. But I couldn’t find anything from the IOC requiring the documents be kept secret until 2025. But that’s what Ballem agreed to do. So none of us who paid for the Olympics can see the financial and legal records or board correspondence, reports, agendas and minutes until after the Sochi 2014, PyeongChang 2018 and 2022 Winter Games have come and gone. 

In February 2011, Ballem excused Olympic Village developer Millennium from its mortgage, which once was worth $1 billion. She later admitted city taxpayers would lose $48 million on the Village, but downplayed the claims of those who said the loss was in the range of $200 million. 

Ballem has a reputation as an uncompromising micromanager and her influence has reached into every department at city hall. Those who have disagreed with her have retired, resigned or been fired. Ballem gagged city hall bureaucrats from talking to the media; they once were accessible and pleased to talk to reporters about the important work they do for citizens. Under her watch, it has become harder to receive records under Freedom of Information. 

Now comes the struggle over control of the city's community centres. Ballem is leading the charge to centralize control with the Park Board. The volunteer Vancouver Community Centre Associations are fighting back. Non-Partisan Association and Green Party politicians are opposed to the plan by the majority Vision Vancouver. 

Green Coun. Adriane Carr wanted to ask fellow councillors at the Feb. 12 city council meeting to order a staff report on the costs of centralizing the 23 community centres. As the Vancouver Courier’s Sandra Thomas reported, Ballem thwarted Carr’s motion. Now Carr has hired a lawyer.  

How can a public employee, no matter how senior, tell an elected official what can and cannot be debated in a democratic setting?

A source provided me a copy of the Feb. 5, 2013, 7:14 p.m. email by Ballem to Carr (copied to city clerk Janice MacKenzie and city lawyer Francie Connell), which said: 

"I apologize that I haven't had a chance to talk to you today about your motion - I just signed off the Council Agenda at about 6pm. Your motion presents a significant issue and given our last conversation about a motion which was a problem I thought I would send you a note. First, the GM of Park Board reports to the Park Board - if you wish to have a report to Council it should be directed to me to bring back.   

"The more important issue is that the Park Board instructed their GM to continue negotiations on a new contract with the CCAs. It would put both the Park Board and the City at risk if there was an airing of these issues in regard to impact  publicly. To reassure you there is work underway to ensure that the PB staff appropriately manage any risk in these negotiations. However for this reason the motion is out of order and I will not be allowing it to go out with the agenda. I have reviewed this with the City Solicitor and the Clerk. Please give me a call any time tonight if you get a break or first thing in the am. I am happy to discuss. Thanks so much pb"