Month: November 2013

Coaly Green Drinks this Thursday!

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

For those not paying attention (and really, why would you?)…

…the proposal to convert part of Fraser Surrey Docks to a coal terminal (the one where they plan to export of low-quality US-sourced thermal coal after employing US-based BNSF Railway to ship it here through the back yards of a bunch of our South-of-the-Fraser neighbours) has entered into the Environmental Impact Assessment phase.

Some have found this assessment to be lacking.

You don’t have to take a medical health officer’s word for it, you can read the entirety of the assessment here, although you better put on some coffee, because the report is technical and I count 900+ pages with appendices.

Yes, that’s it. No, I have not read it. At least not all of it. Yet. 

While you are reading it, you might also want to take notes, as the public comment period is now open, so you, as a member of the public, are free to opine to the Port about the assessment and the project in general. You can send in comments by mail, e-mail, or FAX until 4:00pm on December 17, 2013, to the addresses available here.

Another way you can make your voice heard is to post your comments to a website a group called Voters Taking Action on Climate Change have set up. They call it “Real Port Hearings”, and they will use that site to collect feedback that the Port should be hearing. They plan to forward your feedback to the Port, however, since the Port is not compelled to make any of the feedback they receive public, VTACC will make the feedback public for them; doing the public engagement that the Port should be doing.

Also, if you want to learn more first, you could show up at Green Drinks on Thursday and hear what a couple of well-informed people have to say on the topic of Coal Exports. One of the hosts of the evening is the New Westminster Environmental Partners’ Coal Spokesperson Andrew Murray, and, well, you know who he is! Andrew will be introducing two (2!) special guests who also have a lot to say on the topic of coal and how the Port engages the community:

Laura Benson is Coal Campaigner for the Dogwood Initiative, which has been one of the leading organizations in BC fighting to protect our coasts and our atmosphere from bad decisions and short-term thinking. They are collecting petitions at their Beyond Coal site, trying to get your voice to the elected officials who have the decision making powers on this issue, but are strangely silent on exporting such a dangerous product.

Peter Hall is a Prof at SFU’s famed Urban Studies Program. He is studying the connections between shipping and logistics networks, and how they impact employment and development patterns in port cities. He is also interested in Ports as institutions, and the differing governance models that regulate them. As I’ve said before, so much of the issues that New Westminster cares about (bridges and truck traffic, railways, development of the waterfront, etc.) are Port-related issues, and the research Dr. Hall does is directly applicable to the decisions being made here today, on Coal and on these other topics.

This Thursday, in the “Back Room” of the Heritage Grill, on Columbia Street in Downtown New Westminster. The Heritage is a food-primary establishment, meaning that you do not have to be 19 to enter, and we make it as inclusive as possible. The goal of Green Drinks is to have a comfortable, informal setting where people can mix and mingle, and talk about sustainability and environment. Everyone is welcome, entry is free, and opinions are encouraged! Our speakers might give short talks, but the emphasis is always on two-way and multi-way discussions about topics of common interest – a cocktail party of green ideas, if you will.

See you there!

BC Ferries review – Part 1

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

I know it isn’t really a New Westminster story, but there has been some local twitter buzz about the recently-announced changes in Ferry service, and I ride ferries a fair amount, so I have opinions… and that’s what you come here for, no?

First off, I do regularly ride the Southern Gulf Islands routes, as the NWimby-in-Law lives on the Jewel in the Strait that is Saturna Island. Saturna is the south-eastern most Gulf Island, and has a permanent population of about 350 people, although the population can swell to over 1,000 on a sunny summer long weekend. I note there is virtually no camping or hotels on Saturna; that summer swell is people fortunate enough to have “vacation property” or to have relatives or close friends on the island. The fixed population is just big enough to support a store and a pub, as long as the owners of both are more interested in serving the community than in making significant profits. It is a friendly, small community, and Beautiful.

It is also a community that will probably ostracize the hell out of me after reading the rest of this post.

Saturna is, based on all accounts from BC Ferries, one of those “Problem Runs”. To get there from Tsawwassen you take the SGI milk run to Mayne Island (“Route 9”), then switch to a Ferry bound to Swartz Bay that needs to do a little 20-km-return side trip to Saturna (“Route 9a”). The trip to Swartz Bay (“Route 5”) is a little more convenient, but still relies on the 20-km-out-and-back side route from Mayne or Pender (“Route 5a”). Saturna, even in the winter, sees no less than 25 sailings a week: 4 ferries depart from Saturna every weekday, three every weekend day. The boat is usually the Mayne Queen (70 cars and 400 passenger capacity), sometimes the slightly larger Queen of Cumberland (127 cars, 462 passengers).

It should be no surprise that these ferries are rarely full, or even close to full, in off-peak times (although they do get to overcapacity on those aforementioned sunny long weekends). During the recent route evaluations, the “Utilization Rate”* of the SGI runs are pretty low – 36% for the connection to Swartz Bay, and 43% for the link to Tsawwassen. A closer look at how the ferries are used show what that some rides are virtually empty – the first run to the Gulf Islands in the morning, and the last one back to the real world the evening, which average around 10% utilization. A simple solution, of course, would be to eliminate these two sparsely-used runs. Operational costs cut by 20% overnight! Right?

“For every complex problem, there is a solution that is simple, clear, and wrong”-H.L.Mencken

Click to zoom in. Or go to the original source.

See, the problem is the boat needs to return to Tsawwassen or Swartz Bay at the end of the day. They cannot be over-nighted at Saturna because the ferry crews don’t live on Saturna. Also, there are no re-fuelling facilities on Saturna, or all those little mechanical, restocking, overnight maintenance things that keep the ferries running.Economies of scale keep all of those things at Tsawwassen and Swartz Bay. This creates an interesting phenomenon. If you look (for example) at the Wednesday morning Route 5 sailing to the Gulf Islands, the utilization is an abhorrent 9.2% (yes, that is 6-9 cars, on average!), but the return trip on Wednesday Morning is 91.5% utilized. That second almost-full-on-average trip cannot happen unless that first virtually-empty trip happens. The same thing happens with the last run back to Swartz at the end of the day. It is virtually empty, but facilitates an almost-full last run to the Islands.

So complexities exist, and maybe that is why it appears the Southern Gulf Islands have escaped this round of cuts to service, and not because of the Premier’s property on Galiano Island.

The local twitter-chat I got involved in last week was about another aspect of this report. Whenever anyone starts talking about BC Ferries and funding, a few futurist-engineers-in-waiting start talking about just building a bridge and getting the whole damn thing taken care of. Once and for all, build a bridge, charge a $20 toll, and problem solved. There are only two problems with this idea: a $20 toll won’t nearly cover it, and the technology required for such a bridge does not exist on planet Earth.

The BC Ministry of Transportation has a good summary of previous studies into the crossing, but if I can summarize the problems, it would fill a paragraph. The distance is too long. The shortest practical bridge would be something like 25 km long. This would not be the longest bridge in the world, but it would be more than twice the length of the Confederation bridge, and it would definitively be the longest bridge over very deep water. How deep? That is problem 2: the Strait of Georgia is more than 350 m deep, which is higher than the highest bridge piers ever constructed (and they are over land, with the deck only 2/3 of the way up!). The seabed at that depth isn’t even something you can build piers on, as there is another 400m or more of loose muddy sediments, in an earthquake zone. The depth of loose sediments (combined with the length) also makes a tunnel impossible. The best that could be hoped for is some sort of floating-foundation suspension bridge – one that would allow large ships to pass, could manage 5 meter waves, a 3 knot tidal current and 100km/h winds. No such technology exists, but it was estimated (in 1980s dollars, mind you) that such a technology could be developed and built for $8 Billion to $12 Billion, over something like 15 years. Financing it would require $200-$800 tolls, one way.

Oh, and this proposed bridge would essentially replace the two BC Ferries coastal routes that are making money, leaving most of the money-losing ones still running. So the Fixed Link is definitively not our short-term solution to Ferries costs.

That said, it might be a more rational approach to take a close look at some of the smaller islands and explore the business case for connecting them by smaller bridges to reduce the need for inter-island ferry services. I could get drummed off Saturna and banned from Mayne for suggesting this, but the aforementioned 20-km return side run by ferry could be alleviated by building about 5 km of connecting roads on relatively flat (and pristine) land and two small bridges to connect Saturna to Mayne Island. This would disrupt several people’s property (not the least the private owner of Samuel Island), and I need to emphasise that this would require a solid business case, not some random blogger’s speculation, but there may be opportunities like this to be found across the system.

I will go on in a later post about some of the actual proposals put on the table this week by the Minister of Kamloops, but for now, I have to call the NWimby-in-law and warn her about the torches and pitchforks headed her way.

*As an aside, I question whether “Utilization Rate” a good measure for the effectiveness of a transportation system. I wonder what the “Utilization Rate” of the Pattullo Bridge is, or the Massey Tunnel. What % of the time are they 100% full? An hour or two a day? But I digress.

Thanks

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

I guess it would be inappropriate for me to not blog about this…

As the story says, I was honoured to be nominated, but seriously did not think I would win. I was actually offering 10:1 odds against me winning before the event, and no-one took me up on it. I did not go with a speech in hand, so I am happy that speeches were not expected. Although I am always running off at the mouth, I am not always very good at thanking people, so let’s call this the “acceptance speech” I would have delivered, getting progressively more frantic and louder as the band tries to play me off the stage so everyone can get home to their loved ones…

I have a lot of people to thank for empowering (enabling?) me to rouse so much rabble.

I need to thank the person who nominated me, both for thinking of me and for saying such kind things about me on the nomination. I don’t want to call them out personally here, as that is their thing, and they may be regretting it all now (!) but I have thanked them personally and will for some time to come. I’ll just say, they are serious community builders, and every bit as deserving of this type of honour as I am.

I also would like to thank the Chamber and the nominating/selection committee(s). I actually don’t know how the process works past the “nomination” phase, how short lists or rankings are done. I chatted with a couple of Chamber folks after the event yesterday, and they clearly wanted to preserve the anonymity of the people who make the final choice. So whomever you are, I thank you.

Of course, Ms.NWimby is always shockingly supportive (if you think reading my frequent Tweets gets annoying, imagine living in a house with them!). She is the inspiration for many of my ideas, a sounding board for my constant jabbering, and constitutes the majority of my better judgement. She also keeps the rest of my life in order so I can spend an unhealthy amount of time at meetings, researching, writing, and dreaming. All this while she maintains her own kick-ass career, volunteers for several groups, athletes the socks of people half her age, and bakes the best muffins in the world. She’s damn charming too, if you get the chance to meet her! Thanks Tig, I never forget how lucky I am.

I joked to Grant from the Newsleader that I might be the first “Digital Citizen of the Year”, because so much of my connection in the community comes from the social media and on-line world. Much of the thanks for that go to Brianna Tomkinson and Jen Arbo at Hyack Interactive. When I first started reading Tenth to the Fraser, it broadened my horizons in my adopted town, and inspired me to start doing my own blog – even if it took a couple of years to actually start blogging. Then one day Jen asked me why I wasn’t’t on Twitter, and I said – yeah! Why aren’t I on Twitter? The rest (much to James Crosty’s lament) is history.

But it’s not just about the blog and Twitter chatter, I have made numerous connections and friends through these connections. Networks were created, ideas shared, and community built. People who think that relationships built through the social media are less genuine, or do not result in a strong community, are doing it wrong. I find it amazing that I can have a backyard barbeque and new friends from up the street can come over and meet my Mom, yet feel they already know her because she comments on my blog from 600 km away. Facebook still hasn’t replaced standing in the NWEP booth at River Fest or Sapperton Day when it comes to generating interest in sustainability issues in the City, but the web presence is now as important as the interpersonal face-to-face team building. So… uh, thanks Al Gore? He invented it, right?

My first reaction on Twitter last night was to thank #NewWest, and this meant two things.

First, this City is a great place to be a rabble-rouser, because people in New West are genuinely engaged and interested, and it doesn’t take much to get them a small crowd off the couch around an issue. When TransLink holds an open house in Surrey and 10 people show up, then they get hit by 150 people in New Westminster, you know there is something special about this town. People love to talk issues and love to seek solutions. We also love to disagree, but that is all part of the conversations. I have been to more open houses and consultations in the last few years than anyone (with the likely exception of Bill Zander) and am constantly encouraged to see that the citizens of this City care about their community, and are willing to burn so much of their “spare time” helping to build it. I looked around that room last night, and there were so many people who have been putting in decades of great selfless service to the community (Bill and Lynn Radbourne, Rick Carswell, so many others!), it feels strange to get singled out…but that is the fate of the squeaky wheel. So for everyone who came to a Coal Rally or a Master Transportation Plan open house or Community Plan consultation (even those who wrote down opinions opposite of mine), thank you for being involved.

Second, this City is a great place to be a rabble-rouser because people in decision-making roles are equally willing to engage. For the most part, elected types and staff are willing to listen to new ideas, and are not afraid to take risks. Unlike some senior governments these days, it is not a struggle to get sustainability on the agenda locally. I don’t always agree with the decisions they make, but even in those times they are willing to hear an opposing viewpoint that is offered respectfully. The positive change we have seen over the last decade in this City is not an accident, it is a legacy of good decisions and good leadership. Thanks New West.

Finally, the long list of my enablers in this City include many of the NWEP folks from the early days (Andrew x 2, Matt x 2, Reena, Luc, Peter, etc.) and newer members (Karla, Ginny, Jaycee), my teammates and friends at the Royal City Curling Club, people I have served on boards with and learned so much from (Bruce, Mary, Marion, etc.), constant community organizers like Kendra, James, and (of course) Tej, and so many people that have gone from neighbour to friend to co-conspirator, I know I’m forgetting some of you, but I will thank you next time I see you!

Finally, thanks Dad for making me so opinionated, and thanks Mom for making me so loud about it. 

Now, everyone get back to work.

Can we start the AirCare discussion now?

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 3 Comments.

I’m amazed it has taken until now, but it appears that people other than me and free-enterprise spokes-creep Harvey Enchin are starting to notice that the current government of BC wants to kill Air Care, for no good reason.

If you haven’t been paying attention (and why would you, as there has been virtually no public discussion on this topic?), the region’s only transportation air quality program is under the knife because the Premier has decided it doesn’t work anymore. She has no actual evidence that it doesn’t work. In reality, every time there has been an external audit or analysis of the program it has returned evidence that the program is effective (and will be for at least another decade), cost efficient, provides significant economic benefits for small business, and has spin-off benefits for automotive safety and health care savings.

The only argument against AirCare seems to be that it is kind of inconvenient. Apparently, requiring less than 50% of BC’s car owners to go to a testing centre once every two years, spend 15 minutes and pay $45 to demonstrate that their >10-year-old car still has functioning emission controls is a great big hassle, and for that reason our PR-savvy Premier wants to ax the most cost-effective air quality protection measure in the Province.

So at the risk of repeating myself, here are the reasons we should all be against the shuttering of air care:

Local governments: Metro Vancouver has already passed two resolutions asking that the Province not end the program. This makes simple sense: AirCare demonstrably reduces air pollution in the region, and makes our cities cleaner, healthier, more beautiful, and more liveable, while costing local governments nothing. The same goes for the Fraser Valley Regional District, who have been only tacitly in favour of AirCare, despite the disproportionate impact that vehicle emissions have on their communities. Hopefully, our local governments themselves will also join in and request that the Provincial government re-assess this move.

Unions: Some argue this is about 110 union jobs, and that is why this story is currently in the news, but that is a small part of the story. The AirCare program is run by a private contractor, with only a few government employees. There is an administration level, but the majority of the $19 Million program cost does not go to union wages.

Small Business: Auto Repair division: According to independent economic analysis of the program, there is an annual $35 Million economic spin-off effect to the automobile repair industry from AirCare. These are not predominantly Big Union jobs, but mom-and-pop operations across the City, along with a few of the bigger players like Canadian Tire. Simply put, end AirCare, and these people lose income.

Small Business: New Car Dealer division: Because Air Care has resulted in a measurable updating of the domestic car fleet (and this has been measured against other jurisdictions with similar socio-economic settings but without such a program). In other words, people have bought more cars, and according to external audit, this has resulted in an annual $19 Million in benefit to the New Car Dealers of BC. Where are they on this topic?

The Ministry of Health: The measured effects of AirCare on the health of British Columbians – both in reducing air pollutants and in providing for a newer, safer fleet of cars – could add up to $77 Million in health care savings province wide.

Everyone who doesn’t drive, or drives a car newer than 2008: Because the program is 100% self-financing, you get all the air quality, health, and livability benefits of the program without it costing you a dime. Although administered by TransLink, the program neither draws money from the TransLink Budget or provides revenue to it. It is, despite the protestations tax-opinionater-for-hire Jordan Bateman, no tax money is used to run AirCare, this is not a Government cash cow.

Government has been creating some bafflegab about replacing AirCare with a system to get smoky big trucks off the road. We in New Westminster know as well as anyone about the impacts of diesel truck exhaust, and reducing it is a noble goal, but the introduction of such a program does not preclude the existence of AirCare. Instead, Air Care, in it’s proven efficiency, cost effectiveness, and self-funding model, may be the best template upon which to build a heavy truck program. To suggest both cannot run in parallel is to suggest we have a provincial government that cannot walk and chew gum at the same time.

I expect more from a government.

Back from Tripping on Roads

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

This is just another of those bookmarker posts to say I have been busy, and will be busy for a little longer, so I may not put anything up here for a few more days.

I just got back from a once-in-a-fandom trip, which involved this:

 …followed by this:

…and then some of this:

…strung together by altogether too much of this:

There are stories to tell (mostly about how everything in California is known to California to cause cancer) but right now I have to get some sleep, get back to work, and spend my next couple of evenings working on this:

Chat to you later!

District Energy – a good news story.

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

So much complaining and winging on this blog recently, I’m glad to talk about a good news story for a change!

I’m bully about the future of District Energy Utilities, and so it is good to hear New Westminster is starting to explore the prospect more seriously. The location in lower Sapperton provides an interesting collection of geographic opportunities that might make for a very successful system. But before the details, let’s do a quick primer on District Energy Utilities.

Like any other utility, a DEU is one where a single entity supplies the source and distribution system of a vital commodity, usually as a monopoly, and therefore covered by the BC Utilities Act. That Act assures the public can benefit from the inherent efficiency of a single supplier and integrated supply network, but that the consumer does not get gouged by the lack of competition. When you think of our drinking water supply or electricity grid, it is hard to imagine how else it could be managed. When it comes to “energy”, the concept is a little less clear.

An energy utility produces heat energy (usually through a boiler or heat exchanger), and distributes it (usually in the form of hot water or steam) to a selection of customers. For a variety of reasons, efficiencies can be found in producing the energy in a central site and distributing it widely, instead of having a small boiler in every building. This efficiency can be enhanced by building a larger-scale high efficiency system, and the sustainability of the entire utility improved by choosing a sustainable energy source.

Think about your typical apartment building. New ones generally have electric baseboard heaters around the periphery of glass-walled suites. This relies on the inherent efficiency of the province-wide BC Hydro electrical grid to be affordable, but at the local level, it is not in the least bit efficient. Older buildings are more likely to have boilers in the basement that burn natural gas and heat water which in turn circulates through the building to warm the rooms. The efficiency of this type of system relies on the efficiency of the boiler and the engineering of the distribution network in the building.

A DEU is like the second example. A single water-heating facility, and a system of pipes that moves hot water to the customer buildings. In each of those buildings, a high-efficiency heat pump turns the DEU-heated water into intra-building heated water, and distributes the warmth through the building. In theory, this entire system can also be designed to take heat out of the building in the summer, like any other heat pump.

There are several examples of DEUs operating in the lower mainland, and I have toured two of them. The first, and most famous, is the Southeast False Creek DEU. This is fast becoming the model of a “medium temperature” district energy system whose main energy source is the heat of sewage water.

Diagram from City of Vancouver website. 

There happens to be a big sanitary sewer line than runs by the site, and due to the fact we heat much of the water we use before we dispose of it, and there is so much …uh…organic activity in our sewage, it tends to be warm. There is so much warm sewage in this line that stripping off a few degrees of heat (the temperature exchanger reduces the sewage temperature by less than 5 degrees centigrade) results in a huge amount of energy to run the heat pump. There is enough energy that the system provides the vast majority of the heating and hot water for the buildings being built around the utility. The utility also has an efficient gas-fired boiler to “boost” the energy demand for those few days a year when Vancouver gets really cold and an exceptional amount of energy is needed. At full build-out, the sewage heat will supply about 70% of the total energy needs of the community.

The second example I have toured recently is in the Alexandria neighbourhood of Richmond. This is a very different system, although the fundamental idea is the same. The difference is that this is a “low temperature” system that relies on geothermal energy source. This energy source is a field of 250-foot deep metal loops with a coolant running through them.

Image from City of Richmond website.

As groundwater a couple of hundred feet down is always around 12 degrees centigrade, the temperature between this temperature and heating season ambient temperatures is small (hence “low temperature”) but it still produces a surprising amount of energy. The system is also scaleable, and as the surrounding neighbourhood is built up and more energy is required, the system can be easily scaled up, using pretty much any energy source, from more geothermal to solar water heating to sewer heat (as the local waste water volume ramps up with development).

When I toured the Alexandra energy centre, it still had that New Utility Smell. 

These systems provide significant benefits for users (as energy prices become more stable – not linked to volatile gas or electricity markets), for the environment (replacing fossil fuels and inefficient baseboards with a highly efficient heating system), and for the City that builds them (once the capital costs are paid off- about 10-20 years depending on the system, these utility systems should be a revenue source for the operator).

Back here in New Westminster, it appears from the report to Council, the proposed DEU will be a “medium temperature” variety, not unlike the Southeast False Creek system. This makes sense with the intensity of energy use from a relatively compact footprint. There is also the proposal to use waste heat from a major trunk sanitary sewer that happens to run right by the spot. Clearly, there are details to work out, but we are not inventing a wheel here, we are potentially benefiting from a system that is already successfully operating in hundreds of places, and has already proven itself to be financially sound and energy efficient.

The other option floated is to use a gasification plant to burn waste wood, which is the system that powers Victoria’s groundbreaking Dockside Green development, and also happens to be the system that the Kruger paper plant in New Westminster uses to produce power and steam, significantly reducing their greenhouse gas production by reducing the need to burn gas. I cannot emphasise enough this system is very different that a trash incinerator like the one in Burnaby. First off, the emissions from a gasification plant are remarkably low (and easily cleaned), and secondly, the waste wood represents biospheric carbon, not fossil carbon, so it does not increase the net greenhouse gas budget of the planet.

Actually, since both of these heat sources can be used on the same system, as they both represent “medium temperature” energy sources, and there is not reason (except maybe the economics of scale efficiencies) that the City cannot build both systems, in a staged approach as the Hospital expansion, the final pieces in the Brewery District, and other developments in the area take place.

So this is first steps, but it is good to hear the City is taking this idea seriously.

Responsibility

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 8 Comments.

Responsibility is a big word. It is something that some of us take on gladly, something others avoid like a plague. At the worst, it is often given to people who choose to wield it like a hammer until the time when they start pretending they don’t have it. Once the journey down that path begins, the results can be akin to a train wreck. This has been a week of responsibility-shirking train wrecks.

At the federal level, we were treated to a spectacular display at the Harper Party of Canada convention. After a few weeks of spiraling controversy that seems to be closing in on the big desk in the Prime Minister’s Office and in which Harper has taken repeated body blows from Mulcair in the House, he stood in front of the Party Faithful to give a much-anticipated speech. Instead of addressing the issue, he avoided it completely, and only talked about how everything in Ottawa is tickety-boo except for a few trouble-making Senators whose name he hardly remembered. A review (in the very Conservative National Post) of the speech from (the very Conservative) Andrew Coyne is one of the most spot-on analyses of Stephen Harper ever written.

The entire point is that Stephen Harper, who has so single-handedly ruled for the last few years that his name has replaced Canada’s in official Government media and has honed to a sharp point the PMO-centric governance model already polished by Jean Chrétien, is now claiming he knew nothing of several secret deals to compensate a Senator for paying back illegally-claimed entitlements, although the plan was cooked up in his office by his closest advisers. It doesn’t matter that he was, ultimately responsible, he is claiming no responsibility. Someone else is to blame.

Then we have the situation in Toronto. As Rob Ford’s constantly-shifting defenses (there is no video, It’s not me in the video, I’ve never seen the video, no-one knows what that is I’m smoking in the video, I might have made a mistake being filmed in that video) do little to build his credibility. However, despite the various strange stories around the phantom video – arrested drug dealers, dead informants, police investigations – the Mayor seems to think this is all a vendetta against him by a newspaper, or the Left Wingers, or his Police Chief, or his driver/dealer, or someone. Deep in denial, he rails against those who might suggest that maybe some part of the current situation might be a result of his actions. Someone else is to blame.

At a different scale, and very locally, the presumed-still-official President of Hyack wrote a letter to the local papers last week that that offers a different view on the Hyack fiasco, a view that differs from that previously offered to the public, or even to members of Hyack.

Unfortunately, many of these points only serve to make the situation more muddy. For example:

“Most directors of the Hyack board were aware of the numerous points the executive committee were working with when preparing an ‘employee review’ for Douglas Smith, the former executive director, prior to his departure. The immediate past president was the board member who did not allow the committee to present their findings to the board on July 30, after he raised an ‘incorrect’ point of order, which abruptly ended the meeting and prevented the board from considering all of the evidence available to it.”

First off, this is a perfectly reasonable explanation of why the Board did not approve the removal of the ED, but it does not explain why the ED was removed without the approval of the Board. That the Board was “aware” that the Executive wanted him removed is not in dispute, what is in dispute is whether the Board was required to approve of it, and if there was just cause for dismissal. Even if just cause was presented, was there a plan to deal with potential legal or financial issues that would arise from terminating the contract? If just cause was not present, what would be the result of the ensuing legal action? In my (usually) humble opinion, the job of the Board would be to provide this type of due diligence before decisions are made. If the decision was made without this due diligence, who made it?

Secondly, who chaired this meeting that was caused to abruptly end due to an incorrect Point of Order? The job of chair is to manage the meeting and avoid this type of issue. One Point of Order should not a meeting destroy, or you need a new Chair.

“With respect to the Oct. 22 ‘gathering’ that 25 individuals had at the Columbia Theatre, it was not a sanctioned meeting of Hyack.”

This unsanctioned gathering was just a collection of paid Hyack Members who gathered at the time and place designated by the President in his announcement to the Members of a Special General Meeting. The majority of those members never received notice from the President that the meeting had been cancelled.

”The comments that have been made by persons at that meeting were only the opinions of those individuals and did not reflect the views or opinions of the Hyack board and the association itself.”

Every comment made at that meeting was made by a paid Member of Hyack, and a General Meeting is usually a meeting of Members, not one where comments are limited to those offered by the Board or Executive.

“A number of them were ‘brand new members’ who had been recently signed on only to further the ends of the dissident directors. These people had little independent information or knowledge or information about our association.”

As a relatively new member of Hyack, this strikes close to me. I joined a couple of months ago, in the middle of the “troubles” and at the request of a couple of Board Members. My membership fee was accepted by the Board, and it has never been suggested to me that I am second class member. I got involved in this process, and spent my own $55, because as I said at the very beginning, I really hoped that Hyack could move past this situation and continue to serve the City. I happen to agree with much of what I read in the newspaper written by Douglas Smith after his departure – Hyack had huge potential to move forward and become more relevant through strategic changes. I actually got excited about the possibilities, and thought I could contribute. My interest was only to make this organization stronger and more effective. Being a member of several not-for-profits that do good volunteer work, I have no interest in damaging one.

During my membership, I have worked with the best information I could get. I have received almost no correspondence from the President that would provide me this so-called “independent information or knowledge or information about [the] association”. If the Membership had not received this important information, isn’t it the duty of the President (who has taken pains to point out all of the people who don’t speak for the Association) to transmit that information to the members?

I have received a couple of reports from the President, mostly on the topic of recent parade-related successes in Washington State. The only official reference to the current “troubles” from the President prior to the SGM was the announcement of and rationale for the SGM, excepting these two sentences from the Presidents Report delivered October 13th:

”By now, you know we are having a Special General Meeting on October 22nd where you will be asked to make some tough decisions. The future of New Westminster’s Hyack Festival Association rests on the outcome of this very important meeting and with you, the members. I know you will make the right decisions.”

That’s it. In a 1,000-word report with photos that talked about the activities of Honourary Colonels and First Ladies in Tacoma, Leavenworth, and Issaquah, there were two sentences that obliquely referred to any “independent information” that would have allowed us Members to make the “right decisions”.

I don’t want to attack the current President personally, I honestly believe he is doing what he thinks is best, with the best intentions. However, I think this Letter to the Editor, better than anything I have seen up to this point on the entire Hyack annus horribilis, demonstrates that he cannot see the situation for what it is. Someone else is to blame.

“Rogue” Board members, Douglas Smith, city council, former sponsors, the local newspapers, 25 Hyack members who attended the SGM, the media, the immediate past president, letter writers, etc.; a myriad of dark forces are out to destroy Hyack. Now that I have written this, you can probably add me to the pile. But not once has the President ever suggested that he may have ever done anything that might require some reflection. Through all of this, no mistakes, no bad choices made in the best intentions, not a step wrong. No apologies offered for not managing this situation better.

Instead of deflecting, it is time for someone to act Presidential and take ownership of the situation. If mistakes were made or decisions look worse with the benefit of hindsight, he will be judged less by admitting to it, and apologizing. A mistake is an opportunity to learn, but first there has to be an acknowledgement. Part of Leadership is the accepting of responsibility. That may be the only path forward right now. The solution will not be found in continuing to look for someone to blame.

PS: there were a couple of other moments in the letter that I simply have to address, because they did not reflect my personal experience during the October 22nd event. I stand to be corrected, but it is my opinion that the President got some facts wrong:

“At an official special general meeting, only fully paid members are allowed to vote and only the items on the agenda can be discussed.”

That is the experience I had at the Special General Meeting. There was business to appoint a chair (as the President failed to show up), business to appoint a Secretary, and 4 resolutions, all passed. That is all that took place at the meeting, and all discussion was around that agenda, as sent out by the President prior to the meeting.

“As well, one long-time Hyack member was turned away at the door by one of the dissident directors when he attempted to enter. This was obviously not an open gathering but rather a partisan group of people with a closed agenda.”

That is NOT the experience I had at the Special General Meeting. There were many people turned away before registration for the meeting began, but they were sent home by a representative of the President who, when I arrived, was telling people to go away as the meeting had been cancelled (then he did not stick around to sign in for the meeting). When two dozen people decided not to go away, but to await the arrival of the President to ask him questions, it became apparent the President was not going to arrive. At that time, the doors were opened, and registration was taken, to assure names of each participant was recorded (in case there was a challenge about membership status). I witnessed one person being turned away, because they arrived long after the doors were sealed at 6:45 (as indicated in the agenda supplied by the President) and after voting on several resolutions had already proceeded. Turns out that person was not even a member, but hoped to sign in at the meeting.

The agenda was the one provided by the President prior to the meeting.Nothing more, nothing less.