- - - - - - - Langley Free Press Welcomes Your Comments - - - - - - - - - Name Email URL is optional
The Advance would do the community a very worthwhile service if it would investigate further into the horrendous cost of that BLOB of cement at McCloud Park. There is something at the bottom of this that needs to be exposed, and the general public does not have the ability to do this without being amateurishly clumsy. They could start with a Monday morning estimater.
Not to ruin a good story here, but as hard as this is to write, it is only because of Cllr. Kositsky that the tax hike was kept below 5%. Cllr. Richter, while demanding a whole loaf almost got none. Once she realized that she was not going to get a lower increase it was incumbent upon her to get the best possible tax rate for her constituents. Instead she voted WITH the tax and spenders. She may claim that she was voting against the 5% because she wanted a lower rate but she cannot ignore the effect of her voting pattern which was a support for the higher rate. Had she the courage of her convictions she should have abstained from the vote. Instead, and I write this unhappily, she voted WITH the tax and spenders and against those councillors who were trying to minimize the damage. Simply put idealism is fine in the young but I would hope for a little more pragmatism from my representatives.
That could be no more than an error in manouvering Blair. I think her position could not be expressed on a "Those for, or those against" option. She needed a "None of the above" option, which is non existant.
Both of you are wrong. Richter was the only one that seconded Bateman's motion! In fact there was a long pregnant pause when the Mayor asked for a seconder for Bateman's 5% tax increase motion. In fact if not seconded for discussion by Richter it would have died on the table and the 6% increase would have been approved. So it is Richter that ultimately cut the 1% tax hike.
At least Bateman got it seconded by Richter unlike Richter's important motions! Why does he and the rest of the old boys club not show her the same courtesy as she gave him especially on controversial and pertinent motions.(see todays Times) So in fact even though Richter maintained her principles in the final vote, she was the one that started the wheel rolling or Bateman's motion would have fallen into the dark hole that most of Richter's motion go.
So Blair she stood by her convictions and I believe your assessment is incorrect.
Besides if your ultimate argument is that that like Bateman's, is that you have to swim with the fish downstream together all the time to get some minor change I would argue back that this is the worst of politics that the public detests and indeed I believe that these compromizing fish eventually are seduced and simply forget thier initial honourable motives and get very comfortable and easily assimilated by the fish swimming blindly together in a school downstream. A mutual circle of pleasure so to speak(lol). Another analogy is the lemmings and the cliff! Not enough credit is given to those that stand by their convictions and swim upstream alone. This takes far more courage and stamina.
If someone like Bateman who initially called low taxes(lol) one of his 3 election platforms agrees with Richter that cost of living should have been the ceiling then he should have stood shoulder to shoulder with her to convert others as well not that I believe he would ever agree with her.
Face it this band of boys is just that, they remind me of a band that practises and sings the same song in concert with each other and then slap each other proudly on the backs in glee and have a beer together while watching the hockey game. So if you don't like singing the same tune, beer, hockey, are female, or fight for your convictions, or are a critical thinker, your motions arn't seconded and you can't get on the band. But then what respectable moron in their right mind wants to be a member of this private glee club anyway?
Methinks,
If I'm not mistaken (feel free to correct me anyone) an abstention is how you indicate “none of the above”. To vote WITH the tax and spenders is a whole different story.
I will admit that clearly Cllr. Richter doesn't share their opinions or approach but when it comes to gov't once the votes are counted the intention doesn't matter, just the outcome.
I believe Blair that by law abstentions is not possible for a councillor by the municipal act. And besides which an abstention vote is deemed to go with the prevailing side under Robert's Rules.
And again I added more on to my previous haloscan comment, view them. Blair, there is way too much BAD politicking in politics! The outcome was great Blair wasn't it? A historoic consecutive two year all time high tax increase, 5% & 5%! Both moved by low taxes poster boy Bateman. Was this perhaps an underlying deflecting strategic ploy of the core Albert's slate group all the time just like when Bateman moved adding $1 million overrun to the concrete blob? Justify these to the rural, long term residents and pensioners who will be paying hundreds if not thousands more in taxes with no improved services!
P.S. Councillor Richter is preparing a posting on same apparently for tomorrow right here on LFP.
Wrong, editor. Your interpretation of Roberts' Rules is incorrect, but that doesn't matter, because they don't apply under the Municipal Act anyway.
An abstention under the Act is automatically a counted vote (I can't recall right now, without looking it up, whether it is automatically "no" or automatically "yes"). The only way a councillor can truly abstain is to leave the room – and cite just cause to do so.
The Act isn't really clear as to whether or not the mayor must vote on all mattesr, except when there's a tie, in which case he must break the tie. But councillors can't not vote if they are anywhere in the vicinity and don't have a conflict to declare.
0, we are probably both right. I believe Council can choose to use Robert's rules if they adopt it under their procedure bylaw. But I don't know if they have done so or not.
I believe your Abstention votes info is right and I think that the only just cause allowed would be a conflict of interest.
But maybe you guys could research and enlighten us and maybe if Cllr. Richter or another Councillor is online they could confirm this.
Greeting all,
My apologies, once I was informed that the rule exists it was not too hard to find and I was clearly wrong.
Here is the appropriate section of the 2005 Candidate's Guide: “In council and board meetings, every elected official present is expected to participate in all votes and it is not possible to abstain from voting. Be aware that if you do not indicate your preference in a vote, the official record will show that you voted in favour of the motion.”.
As for the faulty fish/lemmings analogy LFP, while I agree that the outcome was bad, the alternative was worse. In my opinion, when given a choice between bad and worse a responsible representative should choose the lessor of the two evils. By voting against the 4.99% option, she was in effect voting for the greater evil not the lessor. While I recognize that voting for any substantial raise in the tax rate would be difficult for Cllr. Richter, had it not been for a switch by Cllr. Kositsky the higher rate would have been the only option on the table and would have passed. This would have done greater harm to her constituents.
On your other topic Cllr Richter did benefit her constituents by seconding Cllr. Bateman’s motion and in that role she assisted in the process that helped reduce the tax rate. I would argue that it is a pretty interesting re-interpretation of history to say that “So it is Richter that ultimately cut the 1% tax hike.”
Finally, I agree that the other Councillors should be seconding more motions for discussion. I won’t go as far as to say that someone should second every motion but it seems pretty clear that many of the motions thrown out there should have been seconded for the purpose of discussion. Sadly, given the strong feelings in the Council at this point I sense that the current trend of not seconding motions will be the rule and not the exception.
Blair, if you watched the meeting no one stepped forward to second Cllr. Bateman's ~5% tax increase and again after a long pregnant delay Richter seconded it for discussion. This was clearly visible. So its not a re-interpretation its a fact. Look at our latest posting and listen to how short an interval the Mayor waits for a seconder as demonstrated in the new posting's Richter audio clip case!
But Blair you have not looked closer at the events and what really happened. This Editor firmly believes Richter's seconding the motion most likely salvaged the 1% reduction ultimately. Was that Richter's intent? Probably not. That is really as irrelevant as your theory that Mel won the day (lol). No smart politician in their right mind should want to take credit fora 5% tax hike under any circumstance. If Bateman wants to wear this more power to him.
But look a lot closer. She then I believe submitted a motion to amend the tax increase motion to add a efficiency expert. As you can see & hear at my latest posting;
http://www.kimrichter.com/Blog/2...s-
censored.html
I believe that she did so and would and may even have most likely accepted the ~5% motion if they would have addressed the efficiency expert and essentially the core issue as she sees it. The long term fix is clearly her main concern unlike the ole boys club. If they would have agreed to her longer term review and fix amendment how could she not then accept the increase because the taxpayers would ultimately have won in the long term. The important issue is perhaps you didn't know all this because of the old boys club censoring her as I submited and in addition to the local press not reporting all these important events either. Worse still the public did'nt get thisinfo either. Travesty.
Look closer Blair next time and don't believe other one sided stories so easily.
Bateman & the mayor and some of the other astute coucillors (lol) I believe obviously saw this too. No comments after the fact by them about this suggested Richter olive branch. Why? Also why did they ignore this reasonable olive branch at that time too if I am correct is the real question?
Is this because of the the 'band of brothers' mentality?
Crimeny, LFP. You just can't be wrong, can you?
Council does not have the authority to change its rules of order. Not to Roberts or anything else. It must follow the Municipal Act, which stipulates as Blair has reported.
Your attitude over this minor thing elucidates how you manage to twist and turn to champion Kim even when rational analysis takes us straight to another conclusion. Kim helped Jordan's tax-cutting initiative get started, but then she hindered it in the end-game, when the chips were down.
Her goal may have been admirable from an idealistic point of view, but in practical terms, she blew it this time.
0, If you want to see the best twist & turn self serving championing I suggest you can get a big mouthful at another local well known website.
Unless of course that might be your champion? You seem to have a diffilcult time being wrong too 0.
On Roberts rules I admitted uncertainty and asked for anyone's correct confirmation. Settle down for crying out loud. And quite frankly given all the excesses & facts it ain't to difilcult to pick the right champion in my opinion. But then most people are all biased arn't they. Are you?
LFP, if you're talking about Jordan, who campaigned on no taxes and then settled for 5%, he's certainly no champion of mine.
But in this case, he did squeeze it down by 1%, while Kim got nothing.
No white knights anywhere on this council anywhere, but sometimes a few of them, like Jordan and Kim, do let a few shiny spots show through the grime on their armour.
I may not agree with you O, but do like your style!
It just makes me irate when I hear some bloggers on here indicating that by Kim not voting for the 4.9% increase, that she , in fact, voted for the larger increase.
For one, in Bob Groenvelds editorial, after all is said and done it states that all that posturing done by Bateman saved the taxpayers $14.00/yr measly dollars. Why is he trying to act like the 'saviour of taxes' for a couple of bucks.
Secondly, Bateman did say on the blog that he was hoping to win Kim over to the 4.9% increase. Having said that, he later posted on the blog that he had gone back 7 years and found something(on the airport)7 years ago(as if things don't change in 7 years for people to change their opinion) that Kim had voted on and was holding that against her. Now, I say that had he talked Kim into voting for the 4.9% increase and yet she was against the increase, he later would have dragged that out and held her to the fire that 'she voted for the increase'.
Another thing that itches my scratch is that Bateman also said that Scholtens and group held off the taxes so that when Alberts and group came in there was no debt. I don't remember going through the depression and wanting for things when they were in. Whats wrong with trying to cut down the spending? I never was a Scholtens fan but he's looking like a choir boy compared to this bunch.
Willy,
I take it you are referring to me at the start when you say “It just makes me irate when I hear some bloggers on here indicating that by Kim not voting for the 4.9% increase, that she, in fact, voted for the larger increase.”
Being irate does not excuse you from logic, so please show me the error in my logic. I am more than willing to admit being wrong but I don’t think I am in this case. So convince me: Cllr. Richter voted against a 4.9% increase knowing that the ONLY OPTION was a larger increase. She may have had good intentions but we all know where good intentions get you.
I remain to be convinced.
Regards
I think that has been well addressed on this blog, Blair and each of us can draw our own conclusion. Richters position on increasing taxes is well known for anyone thats been in Langley for even a short period of time. She was put between a rock and a hard place; vote for the increase against everything she believed in or vote against it and have someone manipulate it into something it was not intended to be.
On this tax increase iddue, I think Alberts has played the role of "Dog in the manger" to a tee. Supporting the lesser of the whopping increases showing restraint, as he pretended, probably served to meet his goal right from the start.
Blair, abstaining is never a clear indication of what's on an elected person's mind, and too often is interpreted simply as conflict of interest, or even not being clear on the issue. You split hairs here.
Methinks,
Just a reiterate, I was wrong above, you cannot abstain in a vote as a Councillor unless you have a conflict...or find a valid reason to not attend the meeting 
As a result Cllr. Richter had to vote. As Willy says it was six of one, half-a-dozen of the other. Willy and I disagree on which was the right vote but don't disagree that her heart was in the right place.
As for the Mayor, he seems to play the long game. In this case he came out looking like a good guy. Whether he is in reality is once again up to each person to decide on their own.
Commenting by HaloScan
