Category: Other Meetings

Section 105

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

Most of you have heard by now that the City’s Ethics Commissioner ruled on a complaint about my participation at the Local Climate Action Summit and COP28 last year. Our (New! Updated!) Code of Conduct process requires Council to receive and consider the ruling, and any suggested remedies. That happened in Council today, and I have been reluctant to write too much about this before Council completed that process today.

If you want all the lengthy details, there is a long report on the complaint here, including all of the spaghetti-at-the-wall complaints that were dismissed by the Commissioner.

A summary report from the Ethics Commissioner here outlines the issue that was the subject of the investigation.

And a link to my formal response (written to the EC and Council) here.

The short version in that response covers all I need to say to the process. Our Code process allows the option for me to attend the Special Council meeting and plead my case, but I don’t see that as a useful way to spend Council or the Commissioners time when I fully agree with the findings and recommendation (I have nothing the “plead”). I think the brief response makes that clear, and better for Council to deliberate on that report without me staring them down or seen to be putting my finger on the scale. That said, now that is over, I can expand on that brief response and talk to the community about process and what I see as some initial learnings may be.

First off, I do think it is important to apologize for getting us all involved in this process, and I am disappointed that the adjudication process makes it difficult to do so before now. I honestly had no suspicion that my actions constituted a breach of Section 105, and (as the Ethics Commissioner clearly states in her findings) there was no reason for me to doubt the soundness of the advice that I had received. Still, no-one but me holds the responsibility for my actions, and for the downstream results of them. There was a breach of the Charter, and good faith or not it has been an un-needed distraction from the important work we are doing, and need to continue to do, on climate action. I take responsibility and apologize for that.

It is important to clarify where the breach occurred, because it is not clear in most of the reporting around this issue. The Commissioner determined that there was no problem with the City’s participation in the Local Climate Action Summit or COP28, with the way I communicated about this event with staff, Council, or the public, or with the travel itself. The commissioner found that I acted in good faith with the motivation to further Council’s stated goals relating to climate action, and that my participation was consistent with the duties that accompany the office Mayor.

Even the receiving the benefit of the participation in COP28 was determined to be “received as an incident of the social obligations that accompany the office of Mayor and consistent with his duties” and therefore not a breach of  Section 105, which is consistent with the legal advice I received from counsel at the time. However, it was the “luxury” nature of the travel – that being Business Class travel and what is being interpreted as a luxury hotel – was not consistent with these duties, and that part of it constituted a breach of Section 105.

This is definitely a nuanced legal interpretation, and I leave it to the lawyers to debate that. I appreciate the Commissioner’s recommendation that coaching be offered on this, and I’m sure it will be in interesting conversation as the detail is all in how one interprets the sections of the Charter, not the language of the Charter itself. As I mentioned in my response to the Commissioner, a request for coaching on Section 105 was adopted by Council back in January. Now that this review is behind us, we can get on with that.

Finally, I do commend the Ethics Commissioner for the thoroughness of her work, and to staff and counsel who helped Council develop this (New! Updated!) Code of Conduct process. I can’t claim to be happy that I am the “respondent” to the first complaint to make it to this resolution stage, but I am proud that we have a process that brings procedural fairness, transparency, and arms-length review. When we see how Codes of Conduct and ECs are facing challenges around the province, I am happy New Westminster is once again showing leadership. I might further argue that these processes would operate better, and would build more public confidence, if they were led consistently by a Provincial body, and not by local Councils, but I also know we are not a City that shrinks away from doing important work because it is “someone else’s job”.

That includes Climate Action. As COP29 starts next week in Baku, there is no Local Climate Action Summit component, with the LGMA mandate being fulfilled through the CHAMP process that was ultimately the product of LCAS at COP28. We will have some better idea about the success of this model when Belém hosts COP30 next year. Until then, Local communities will still be leading the way in direct climate action, in empowering youth to take power over their future, and in addressing the impacts of a disrupted climate.

UBCM 2024 (part1)

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. Leave a comment.

The annual Union of BC Municipalities meeting was held last week in Vancouver. If I was slow to reply to an email or message, it’s because the UBCM is a chaotic time that challenges my calendar the most. Now that we are wrapped, I have a bit of time to report out on what we saw and did at UBCM, as I have in previous years. This is probably going to take more than one post, so instead of doing it in the order things happen in the calendar, I’ll cover it by themes.

I’m going to start with the fun (for policy nerds) part: the resolutions sessions. Every year, municipalities put forward resolutions and ask the membership to support these resolutions. They are generally motions calling for changes in policy, regulation, or funding from senior governments, predominantly the provincial government. The resolution session this year included more than 250 Resolutions, and through a slightly complicated process, some are moved in “blocks”, some are defeated in a “block”, and a large number are debated in order, one at a time. Overall, the membership decided on about 200 resolutions, more endorsed than defeated.

I obviously can’t discuss all 200+ here, but I can cover the 5 resolutions brought to UBCM by New Westminster, and one other I sponsored through my role on the Metro Vancouver Climate Action Committee.

EB4 Additional Funding for Overdose Prevention Sites across Local Governments

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the Province of British Columbia to increase funding for Health Authorities to augment existing, and to open new, supervised consumption and overdose prevention sites, including related inhalation services, across British Columbia and including local governments which do not currently offer this service to residents.

This resolution was endorsed by the Lower Mainland LGA when we met in the spring, and was endorsed as part of the “Endorsed Block” at UBCM. This block works like a Consent Agenda, where members can “pull” items, but otherwise they are approved en masse without debate.

EDIT: since I first hit publish on this post, looks like at least one Provincial leader has decided to do the opposite of what the Cities of BC are collectively asking for and what the entirety of the public health community and the overwhelming body of evidence suggests we should do, and has announced he would close all of the existing sites if elected. Make no mistake, this ghoulish move would kill people and cut off one of the primary pathways to treatment services.

EB13 Eliminating Barriers to Publicly Owned and Operated Home Care Services and Long-Term Care

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the Province to eliminate financial and accessibility barriers by investing in more publicly owned and operated and not-for-profit home care services and social supports required to age in place, and by further investing in publicly owned and operated and not-for-profit long-term care to ensure seniors are well supported in the continuum of care.

This resolution was also endorsed as part of the Endorsed Block, and there were similar resolutions from the North Coast Local Government Association (with a bit of a “rural flair” put on it) and by the City of Burnaby which spoke more to the need for a standard funding formula for these services, and those were also endorsed.

EB40 E-Comm Governance Review

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the provincial government to engage local governments in a comprehensive review of the governance structure and delivery model of 911 emergency call taking, related nonemergency call taking, and emergency dispatch services across BC with a goal to assure reliable, affordable, and sustainable services for all communities.

This resolution was not only endorsed by the membership through the Endorsed Block section (after receiving endorsement from the Lower Mainland LGA and the UBCM Resolutions Committee), but came back to the members as a commitment from the Premier during his speech at UBCM:

I have to take a moment to pull that out: both the City of New Westminster (through Council and with support from our Fire and Rescue Services) and the New Westminster Police Department (through the Police Board) have been banging this drum for some times now. The reliability of 911 services was a critical issue during the Heat Dome of 2021, and the cost of 911 call taking and dispatch has been rising significantly over the last couple of years. At the same time, our non-emergency call service was so unreliable we had to pull it from E-Comm and take that in house at our Police Department, again adding to our costs. With the pending introduction of “Next Gen 911”, which brings 911 into the modern communications era with text messages, video calls, and fewer people having phones plugged into walls, the ongoing cost and reliability concerns could be exacerbated. We need a comprehensive review of the governance of Emergency Communications services to determine if E-Comm is still a viable model.

I’m glad the Minister of Public Safety and the Premier heard our calls.

NR78 Allowing Local Governments to Apply Commercial Rent Controls

…be it resolved that UBCM ask the Province of British Columbia to provide local governments with the legislative authority to enable special economic zones where commercial rent control and demo/renoviction policies could be applied to ensure predictability in commercial lease costs, so local small businesses and community-serving commercial tenants can continue to serve their communities.

After a firey debate and close vote to endorse at the Lower Mainland LGA, this resolution didn’t disappoint at UBCM. It was one of the better debates on the Friday resolutions sessions, with some concerns raised, and folks from the Island, from the Interior and Fraser Valley all arguing how this tool might help their community, if cities choose to apply it. It was also interesting to see this was not a clear “left vs right” debate, but people across the spectrum wanting to support small community-serving businesses in their community. The quality of the debate was helped by Councillor Henderson’s leadership in framing the issue with facts and passion. In the end, I don’t even think the vote was that close, it was clearly endorsed by a large majority of the members.

RR17 Creating Safer Streets for Everyone with Intersection Safety Cameras

…be it resolved that LMLGA and UBCM call on the provincial government to expand the implementation of speed and red light intersection safety cameras in local governments across BC, prioritizing intersections near schools and those with a high rate of crashes that result in injuries or fatalities as identified by ICBC, and that the provincial government provide all revenue from additional speed and red light cameras to local governments as grants to be invested in implementing local and safety improvements; And be it further resolved that the UBCM request that the provincial government allow BC local governments to install speed and red light cameras at their own cost and set and collect fees directly to be earmarked for road safety improvements.

This motion was endorsed by the Lower Mainland LGA, but was not even debated at the UBCM because it was considered redundant. This is because there were no less than five other resolutions (EB41 Dawson Creek, RR14 Delta, RR15 Lake Country, RR16 North Vancouver City, RR18: Saanich) that asked for some version of the same thing. Only the Dawson Creek one was endorsed through the Endorsed Block, while the rest were considered redundant.

If nothing else, this reflects that the support for increased automatic road safety enforcement is broad across the province, and reflects the increased public sentiment around this. I would be surprised if the new government after the upcoming election does not look at this program for massive expansion, if not a re-write to bring more local control as most communities (like New West) are asking for. Watch this space!

NR81 Provincial Funding for Active Transportation Infrastructure

…Therefore be it resolved that UBCM urge the Government of BC to expand funding for active transportation infrastructure to at least $300 million annually over the next ten years to support the development of protected, connected, and accessible local cycling and walking infrastructure networks across BC, that are integrated into larger regional active transportation and public transit networks.

This resolution was put forward by Metro Vancouver, and as vice-Chair of the Climate Action Committee, I was asked to speak as sponsor toward it. If you are a frequent reader (Hi Mom!) you have heard my spiel on this before, you can read more of it here. This was endorsed by the members of the UBCM.

So overall, a successful resolution session for New West. All of our resolutions were supported (directly or by proxy) and one was responded to with concrete action. Of course, we won and lost other debates regarding the other resolutions put forward by our colleagues across the province, and quite a few important resolutions never made it to debate due to the resolutions session running out of time on the Friday, but it was a good year overall.

I’ll follow up this post with one about the other parts of the convention, the workshops and other learnings I attended, and the political part. I will also likely circle back to some more of the politics at my Newsletter, for those that subscribe (its free!)

CAPG 2023

Posted on . by Patrick Johnstone. 1 Comment.

One of the aspects of being elected Mayor in New Westminster (or in any of the 11 municipalities in BC with a local police force) is you are also made the Chair of the New Westminster Police Board. A peculiarity of this is that people commonly are elected to mayor after building experience on City Council, there was a chance to “learn on the job”. That opportunity simply doesn’t exist for police board – in BC, members of city council are forbidden from serving on police boards. So compared to council, the learning curve is sharp.

I have taken the opportunity to take some training from the Ministry of Public Safety that is available for all police board appointees, and have years of experience serving on and chairing various boards, but police boards are unique structures, and we are in a time of significant change in police governance in BC. So I took the opportunity to attend the annual conference of the Canadian Association of Police Governance and engage in some intensive learning and peer networking. I thought I would share here some of my experience and thoughts.

The event was attended by police board members from around the country (though, not Newfoundland and Labrador, but I’ll talk about that later), along with police leadership (both Chiefs and Association leadership), staff, and several academics and representatives from service agencies that interact with police. One thing I learned was about the vast difference in police governance models across Canada, and how in many ways BC is “ahead of the curve” on governance.

”Federal Government has the money, Provinces have the jurisdiction, Cities have the problem”

There was a lot of conversation about the current state of policing across Canada, including discussion of the recommendations arising from various reports looking at policing failures: Turning the Tide Together, Inquiry on the 2022 Public Order Emergency, Reclaiming Power and Place, and others. It was not always clear or consistent what a police board’s role in police reform is. More philosophically, there was some question whether boards, being part of what needs reforming, can at the same time be the agent of that reform.

As board structures vary across Canada, they also vary in the resources available to them, and in the level of political influence in their operation. Most boards have dedicated staff who report to them, not to the police service (something we do not yet have in New West). It was apparent from discussions with board members from other provinces that appointments are distinctly political in many jurisdictions – to the extent that a provincial election ushers in new board members to match the partisan leaning of the new government (something I have never sensed in BC, where most appointments are based on recommendations from the civil service through CABRO).

One thing seemed pretty universal: the recognition that reform (at the minimum) is needed in policing and police governance if we are to turn the tide on declining public trust in policing. To be clear – most Canadians do trust and respect policing, however when one panelist asked the hundreds in the audience “How many of you think we are on a good path right now?”, not a single hand went up. Not one. It seems the prevalence of “bad apple” events popping up across the country, made more visible by social media expanding events beyond local regions, is leading to conversations everywhere about whether those apples all point to a problem with the orchards or the soil (a metaphor stretched many times in this conference). This perception, as much as the reality, has the potential to impact the operational effectiveness of police, as retirements and recruiting are challenging this sector as much as any other. One compelling question was whether Peel’s 9 Principles would be the same if written today, maybe an exercise for police boards to engage in with their members.

”Keep politics out of policing”

It could be said police boards are where policing meets politics, because police boards are meant to represent the public and be the governance oversight of the public service that is policing. Governance and public representation are inherently political activities. In the panel on Politics of Policing, this was explored at some detail. I especially enjoyed the academic Michael Kempa taking us back to core principles of political economics:

The general discussion here evolved from the simplistic separation of policing from politics to how police boards need to assure transparency and accountability to the public, something they are generally not good at because of the slightly arcane nature of their existence. Police boards are not elected, and as it is unclear if or how they can be fired or reprimanded, it is unclear about how the public can hold them accountable – what is the mechanism available to the public (or for that matter a City Council, the Provincial government, or a police service) to hold a group of volunteers accountable when most of the public don’t even know they exist? This is part of the drive for governance reform.

As a bit of an aside, I found it interesting that the former president of the Vancouver Police Union was on this panel, but the notion of keeping police out of politics was never raised. Last municipal election saw active participation of police associations in the elections of the mayors of BC’s two largest cities, suggesting the “firewall” between politics and police is at best a one-way mirror.

”Speaking as a policing researcher, I can tell you one thing about data: all police data is terrible.”

My absolute favourite session of the conference was a lengthy discussion and participatory exercise about the “Alignment Gap”. This is the lack of consistency between what police leadership say policing values are, and what police members actually do. Police publicly embrace equity, diversity, and inclusion, but are still being found to fall short of delivering on those plans. Police speak of the importance of community, but are too often accused of lacking civility on the ground. In their extensive study of this “gap”, the presenting academics (Hodgkinson and Caputo) suggest the issue points back at strategic planning failures and a lack of involvement of police members in visioning the direction of policing. There is a reluctance in policing to talk to the folks “at the coal face” about the small nuisances and larger challenges in their work. This is partly because of the inferred separation of police boards (who do strategic planning) from the operations of police.

For context: one thing driven into police board members frequently is that our job is strategic planning, policy, oversight, but that operations of police are the wheelhouse of police management and the Chief. Dr. Kempa (in that earlier session) argued this distinction is blurrier than most realize – that the amount a police board can suggest or instruct operations (outside of arrests, investigation, or charging) is better characterized as a negotiation between the board and the Chief, as the board ultimately has the authority to remove a Chief in the event of conflict.

In the end, this session had some excellent suggestions on how police boards and police can better do strategic planning to close the Alignment Gap, mostly by including the membership and the public in more meaningful ways, and improving bottom-up communications.

“Victoria Police still have a Y2K Committee…”

Yes, that was the biggest laugh of the day, and I’m pretty sure (at least I hope!) it was a joke, but funny because it hits close to the bone around the general resistance to change in police organizations, and the seeming use of bureaucracy to deflect from change.

We had a presentation from the Victoria police on the path British Columbia took towards decriminalization of some drugs (which stood in sharp contrast to a presentation from the Alberta Minister of Public Safety on their anti-harm-reduction approach, which seemed disconnected from recent headlines). We heard about the impact of mental health stigma on the ability for police to get help when they are dealing with operational stress injuries and post traumatic stress injuries. There was a panel outlining the Calgary experience with mental health call diversion, which is best described as “police led and community driven”, as opposed to the PACT or CAHOOTS-type model where diversion removes police from first response.

We also had a compelling and newsworthy panel on the complete lack of police governance and failed oversight on Newfoundland and Labrador – our host community. To see a former police chief, a lawyer who primarily represents citizens suing police, a leader of an indigenous rights organization and a progressive City Councillor all asking for the same thing (modern governance for the Royal Newfound Constabulary), only to be met with silence from a provincial government, demonstrated for most of us in the room not from the easternmost province that things could always be worse.

Overall, I am really happy I was able to attend this conference, and will be taking learnings back to the New Westminster Police Board as we enter a phase of governance review. I was also able to network with members of the Police Boards of Nelson, Abbotsford, Surrey, and other municipalities across Canada, and have a new network of collaborators as I continue to learn this new job.