Subject: We won at last night's Park Board meeting!
Date: Tue, 12 Sep 2006 12:29:04 -0700
From: Annelise Sorg <annelise@direct.ca>
To: Coalition For No Whales In Captivity <cfnwic@whaleprotection.org>
Dear All,
We were all very surprised we won, but we did!
A big "Thank you!!!" to everyone who participated in the Park Board meeting last night and supported trying to stop the Vancouver Aquarium from building more whale pools -- because that only means more whales.
A whale of a thank you to Denis Howarth, legal advisor to No Whales In Captivity, who represented us at the meeting last night. Despite a painfully injured left leg, Denis drove himself to the meeting, hobbled over to the microphone and read his speech to the commissioners holding the piece of paper in his right hand while standing on one leg, held up by two crutches tucked under his left arm. But he must have said the right things because in the end, the commissioners did exactly what Denis and other supporters told the Park Board to do, avoid a political scandal and don't become involved in the aquarium's public relations campaign.
This battle was won. The next battle in this war against expansion will take place in November when the Park Board officially receives the aquarium survey/propaganda for expansion. Even Commissioner DeGenova has said he might vote in favour of expansion then.
Hopefully, by the time November rolls around the Park Board will be so embarrassed by the lawyers representing No Whales In Captivity (and we'll have to talk fundraising real soon!!!) proving in court that the Vancouver Aquarium broke the law in October 2005 when they imported two dolphins from Japan, and that the Park Board did nothing to enforce that law, that they will postpone the aquarium's expansion plans another ten years,
FYI below is today's CKNW Radio news, Vancouver Sun newsarticle, and Denis Howarth's humorous report on what happened last night.
Annelise Sorg
COALITION FOR NO WHALES IN CAPTIVITY
www.nowhalesincaptivity.org
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquarium to do it's own research and report back
Sep, 12 2006 - 1:30 AM
VANCOUVER/CKNW(AM980) - Over one hundred people packed Monday night's Vancouver Park Board meeting to hear how public input would be heard on a controversial plan to expand the Vancouver Aquarium.
Commissioners were supposed to decide on a public consultation process in partnership with the Aquarium, who would pay the $300-thousand dollars to conduct public surveys and focus groups.
But, a last-minute motion by Commissioner Alan De Genova scrapped the partnership, meaning the Aquarium will present the Board with the results of their own consultations.
De Genova says he doesn't want the Park Board associated with what he calls a slick campaign, "I feel there's not enough transparency here to put the message out clear so we can let the community decide. I look at this after a month, and where I see where this comes from is, it's just way too slick for me."
While a referendum on Aquarium expansion isn't on the table, the public would have their say if the Board decides to hear public input on the plan in November.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Aquarium expansion in limbo after vote
Darah Hansen, Vancouver Sun
Published: Tuesday, September 12, 2006
VANCOUVER - A proposed plan to increase the size of the Vancouver Aquarium by 50 per cent is in limbo after the Vancouver park board decided Monday night to sever itself from a controversial public consultation process.
In a 5-1 vote, the board agreed to an eleventh-hour motion put forward by Commissioner Allan De Genova to allow the aquarium to seek public support for the proposal to expand the facility further into Stanley Park.
But the board also decided the process must go forward without the board's full co-sponsorship.
De Genova said public consultation taken to date by the aquarium -- led by a public relations firm -- is "way too slick for me. It needs to be more transparent."
The board's decision left Vancouver Aquarium president John Nightingale bewildered.
"I don't understand what they want," he said. "I understand in words what they said, but I don't understand what they are driving at."
Nightingale said the aquarium board will take the next few days to determine what it will do next. The aquarium said it was willing to invest $300,000 in a public consultation process that Nightingale believed would produce the most valid barometer of public opinion.
Park commissioner Loretta Woodcock, however, said the process put forward by the aquarium was asking the public to support the proposal first, then ask questions later.
She said under the motion approved Monday, the aquarium would be treated like any other tenant in the park -- it will need to put forward a credible case for its expansion.
The board will then vote.
Of Monday's motion, Woodcock said "this is not anti-aquarium. It is anti-process."
About 100 people attended Monday's park board meeting held at VanDusen Botanical Gardens.
The $70-million expansion, which was introduced to the board in May, would include building larger habitats for the aquarium's marine life, new underwater viewing areas, new facilities for animal care, two new indoor galleries, plus expanded food services and gift shop.
The project would destroy 0.6 hectares of Stanley Park green space and require cutting down 32 trees, according to a technical report on the project prepared by the Vancouver park board.
It is stirring up concern among some park board commissioners, who fear the project is chipping away at valuable land. Some of the trees that are slated to be chopped are more than 30 centimetres in diameter, including a Western red cedar that is more than 200 years old.
dahansen@png.canwest.com
© The Vancouver Sun 2006
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vancouver Park Board votes to keep itself honest
[Reported by Denis Howarth]
The Vancouver Park Board, at its meeting on September 11, 2006, backed off from a staff recommendation that it participate officially with the Vancouver Aquarium in co-managing a "public consultation process" to be paid for by the Aquarium and run by the Aquarium's hired public relations firm Kirk & Co. Consulting Ltd.
The meeting began at 7:00 p.m. After preliminaries, the first substantive items (combined #2 and #3) on the agenda being "Aquarium Revitalization and Expansion Proposal, Technical Review, and Public Consultation Process", the Chair Heather Holden explained that she is an Aquarium employee and excused herself from the head table. The Commissioners were (as seated from their right to their left) Zlotnik, Houghton, Robertson (Vice-Chair), DeGenova, Herbert, Woodcock.
The staff report contained these three recommendations.
A. THAT the Board receive for information the proposal by the Vancouver Aquarium
to revitalize and expand the Aquarium in Stanley Park, as described in this report
and shown in Appendix 1;
B. THAT the Board receive for information the technical review prepared by Park
Board staff on the impacts of the Aquarium’s proposal on Stanley Park, attached as
Appendix 2;
C. THAT the Board endorse the public consultation process, as outlined in this report,
to gather public input on the proposal by the Vancouver Aquarium to revitalize and
expand the Aquarium in Stanley Park. [Kirk's proposal was attached as Appendix 3.]
Three "staff" presentations (with supporting slides) were made on these three reports, on "A" the expansion proposal by Jim Wright, on "B" the staff technical review by Michel Desrochers (who actually is on the Park Board staff), on "C" the public consultation process by Judy Kirk the Aquarium's hired consultant. Judy Kirk explained that the proposal had been revised since it was initially presented in July, by the addition of reports on the feedback so far received from "stakeholder groups". Incidentally (though this was never made the subject of comment during the meeting), what Judy Kirk said at this point consisted, like the report revisions themselves, of lies, lies of omission and lies of misrepresentation. She, like the report, did not specify who the "stakeholder groups" had been, nor what topics had been discussed with them and how, and she suppressed the fact that one "stakeholder group", the Coalition For No Whales In Captivity, had submitted a complete re-write of the proposal (incorporating and commenting on all the original material and adding more) which raised fundamental ethical issues. Judy Kirk took some pains to explain that after her firm's final report on the process is submitted to Park Board and public meetings on November 27 and 28 it would be possible for the Park Board to call additional public meetings before making their decision.
Delegations on this agenda item were heard commencing at 7:49 p.m. Robertson, in the chair, explained that there were 16 delegations, that a warning noise would tinkle at 3 minutes and each speaker would have a total of 5 minutes to speak. The chair asked that each speaker give his or her name and affiliation. Five speakers, all very different, spoke against adopting the "public consultation process" or against expansion, and eleven speakers, all very similar and varying only in age, sex, and ethnicity, all revealing their associations of some long standing with the Aquarium, said they wanted the "process" because it is good to consult and listen to the public. It may be observed that, on scientific opinion-gathering principles, the result is a rate of 68.75% "in favour" which really ought to have concluded the matter, ought it not? Of the audience of nearly a hundred persons, about half clapped for the "in favour" speakers, and half clapped, though notably more vigorously, for the other speakers. There were no questions from the Commissioners to any of the speakers.
1. Eleanor Hadley -- Said she was speaking on behalf of Stanley Park. Spoke against Aquarium expansion.
2. Denis Howarth (Legal Advisor, No Whales In Captivity) -- Said he would speak not on the issue of Aquarium expansion, but only on governmental process, the proposal discussed by Judy Kirk. He had no "affiliation"; rather, he had been asked to speak by No Whales In Captivity, which had written the Commissioners a 4-page letter analyzing the ethical issues. His remarks would simply deal with the essence of the matter. "Why would you want to do this thing? Are you nuts?" Look at your staff report, which says "The Park Board's Strategic Plan (2005) stated ... that the Park Board is 'committed to open and transparent decision-making'." Look at what you are being asked to do, which is to hand over a part of your governmental authority to the private entity you are supposed to regulate and which has a financial stake in one particular outcome. If you do this, tonight's meeting could become the Park Board's 9/11 meeting, followed by conspiracy theories. So don't do it. The Aquarium is asking for the unique privilege of 50% more land in Stanley Park, while begging that you not hold a public vote, that you put the Aquarium itself in charge of telling you what the people think, and that you make the Aquarium your partner in government, with a process jointly managed by the Aquarium, its hired consultant, and the Park Board, but excluding everybody else. Morally this would be worse than the federal Sponsorship Scandal, which just involved handing out government money, while this would involve handing out government power. The only thing you would get out of it would be scandal. You would be seen as crooks, though you all want to act as honest elected officials and not one of you wants to be seen as a crook. Just decline to participate. Let the Aquarium spend its $300,000 on its own promotional process, and present their report, which will be the same data they were planning to give you anyway. Wish the Aquarium well with their promotion, tell them to take the Park Board's name and logo off their materials, and in a few months receive their report in a friendly way. But receive it with skepticism, because the report purchased with $300,000 will not give a valid representation of public opinion. To determine public opinion, you must hold a referendum. For a democratic government there is no other way.
3. Janos Mate (WhaleFriends) -- Spoke both against Aquarium expansion and against the improper public process. The chair asked him to confine his remarks to the motion before the Board about the public consultation process. This interruption by Robertson was actually incorrect, since the motions included "A" and "B" which were to receive information about the expansion, and therefore remarks about, or even confined to, the expansion were perfectly in order.
4 to 13. John Nightingale (Vancouver Aquarium) and his Acquaintances -- Nightingale said the Aquarium had been planning expansion since last year. It was the Park Board staff who had told them there would have to be some kind of public consultation, so the Aquarium had decided to accept the necessity for the process and had come up with the money. He was followed by a lineup of persons who each explained at length his or her history of very satisfactory association with the Aquarium. At about the third speaker in, somebody in the audience objected that the remarks were not on topic and the chair should be even handed, and thereafter Robertson had to admonish each speaker at some point to address the issue of the public consultation process, at which point the speaker would say he or she was in favour of the process because people should be able to give their opinions and and be listened to. The speakers, which included about three VA Board members and three VA volunteers, were Mike Satterfield, Sandy Martin, Tanya Bell, Stephen Regan (Tourism Vancouver), Sherman Lee (she is a biology student), Walter Coates, James Scott, Simon Woo, David Anderson (VA Board member, not the former federal minister but an Education professor whose research specialty is "visitor impacts" and whose research has told him that visiting the Aquarium does have an impact on the visitors who visit it).
14. Stuart Mackinnon (Green Party of Vancouver) -- Spoke on the impropriety of the proposed public consultation process.
15. Brent Granby (West End Residents Association) -- Explained how he and his association have worked in the past in close cooperation with the Park Board on Stanley Park matters, but that recent developments have caused him to reconsider his former support of the Aquarium.
16. Janet Landucci (Vancouver Aquarium) -- Identified herself as the president of the Board of the Vancouver Aquarium, which she said has 44 Board members. She is in favour of the process that they are paying for.
The chair asked whether the Commissioners had any questions for the speakers. Only Herbert had a general question. He held up a full-colour "Discussion Guide" brochure that had been produced by Kirk & Co. and asked whether any speaker, or anybody in the audience, had seen it. Only two hands were raised, one by Eleanor Hadley (which may have been mistakenly). It later transpired that the brochure included the logos of the Park Board as well as the Aquarium, that its content was of the nature of promotional or sales literature, and that it had been distributed to the Commissioners that morning.
Debate by the Commissioners commenced at 8:55 p.m.
Zlotnik -- He observed with respect to the delegations that "I don't find inflammatory remarks helpful". Holding referendums is not why the Commissioners are elected, we are elected to make the decisions ourselves. He said, "The Aquarium is our partner." From the audience, Fred Grannard stood up and said that he had heard no inflammatory remarks tonight.
Houghton -- She supports the process "because the Aquarium is a partner". Saying "no" to it would be like saying "no" to a Community Centre that wanted Park Board cooperation.
DeGenova -- He had read news reports over the weekend, one that the Aquarium was planning on no more cetaceans, another that it was expanding by 50%. He compared that to an owner of a rental development saying that he was adding 50 units but would have no more tenants. The "Discussion Guide" brochure that had been distributed to the Commissioners was hopelessly one sided. Accordingly he made a motion, "That the Park Board distance itself from this process by not being a co-sponsor, but allow the Aquarium to go forward and try and convince the people they are doing the right thing." It was seconded by Woodcock. DeGenova said that the Park Board's logo being attached to this promotion is not right -- this is the Aquarium's consultation. Nevertheless, he has for many years been a supporter of Aquarium expansion. But there is not enough transparency here. This brochure is way too slick for him. The Aquarium is the tenant, the Park Board is the landlord. He has a real problem seing the Park Board's logo attached with the Aquarium's. He wants to hear what the community has to say through a very transparent process.
As DeGenova made his motion, looks of dismay appeared on the faces of the Commissioners on the right. It meant that recommendation "C" now could not pass, but would fail on a 3 to 3 vote, with DeGenova, Herbert, and Woodcock opposed. The question now became whether one or more of those on the right would support DeGenova's motion, so that it would pass.
Zlotnik -- He would like clarification, how if the Aquarium conducted the process on its own, the Park Board would have power to monitor the results.
DeGenova -- This process as it is being conducted is slanted too much, a sales job.
Herbert -- His duty is to exercise due diligence to watch that every decision by the Park Board is made in the public interest. The Commissioners have now received a key piece of information about the process, that is, the "Discussion Guide" brochure, to which none of the audience have had access. He had previously been willing to give the "public consultation process" the benefit of the doubt, but now sees a process that is not objective. The "Discussion Guide" tries to get you to buy into the proposal.
DeGenova -- There is an effort to rush an $80 million proposal, one that will affect the next 50 years, to get a decision in a few weeks.
Woodcock -- She supports DeGenova's new motion. She thanks the delegations. The Park Board is a 118 year old institution, and the people expect to have trust in their elected representatives. As for the proposal, "This is a public relations exercise." She is ashamed of some people who spoke and said that they agreed with the proposal without having read it.
Zlotnik -- Requested a five minute recess.
At 9:17 p.m. the Park Board took a "five minute" recess, which of course extended for eighteen minutes. At 9:35 p.m. it reconvened.
Houghton -- Reluctantly, she is supporting DeGenova's motion, in order to allow some kind of process to go forward.
Zlotnik -- He understands that DeGenova's motion is trying to remove any issue of bias. It is unfortunate. The public consultation process is a good process. But if this is what we have to do to have some form of process go forward he will vote reluctantly in favour of the motion.
Moved by DeGenova, seconded by Woodcock, [worded approximately as follows] "That the Park Board distance itself from this process by not being a co-sponsor, but allow the Aquarium to go forward and try and convince the people they are doing the right thing." Carried, 5 to 1 (Robertson opposed). As a result, the staff recommendation "C" was superseded and dropped.
Recommendation "A" to receive the Aquarium's expansion proposal for information was Carried, 4 to 2 (DeGenova and Herbert opposed). On recommendation "B", Woodcock objected that to receive the staff report might imply that the staff "technical review" was now complete and no further information is due to be received. Recommendation "B" to receive the staff's technical review for information was Defeated, 3 to 3 (DeGenova, Herbert, Woodcock opposed).
At 9:42 p.m. the Park Board took another recess, before proceeding to the remainder of the agenda. The audience dispersed. The press held a few interviews -- my response being that DeGenova, Herbert, and Woodcock had done the right thing to keep the Park Board honest and it was a good night for democracy -- then the press packed up and left.
Outside, as I was hobbling on my crutches to the parking lot, I passed a small group composed of Nightingale, Kirk, and associates, who were apparently discussing a reduction in the scope of their contract. As I went past I heard Nightingale say "... so we don't do the tour ...".