Bill M203 - Translink board Meetings to be Open to the Public

[lightrail]

Sick of Translink meeting behind closed doors? There is a private members bill at first reading that will require Translink board meetings to be publicized and open to the public.

Bill M203 is here - http://www.leg.bc.ca/38th4th/1st_read/m203-1.htm

[mr.x]

I have no problem with these closed meetings. Meetings tend to be quite a bit more productive. These people are professionals, they aren't politicians and you don't really want the fish bowl effect with the public watching - meetings tend to become more 'fake'. Same goes with the justification of not having public VANOC meetings.

[MistyMountainHop]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

I have no problem with these closed meetings. Meetings tend to be quite a bit more productive. These people are professionals, they aren't politicians and you don't really want the fish bowl effect with the public watching - meetings tend to become more 'fake'. Same goes with the justification of not having public VANOC meetings.

It's a democracy. The public has the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by marmorek

It's a democracy. The public has the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

I'm all for public hearings before the actual meeting, but not during the decision making/discussion part of the meeting.

And with regards to fare increases and property tax increases, I'm all for full public meetings for that.

[jlousa]

I don't mind the private meetings, lets be honest if they start misbehaving they will be ousted pretty quick as the public won't stand for it. Until that happens let them go at it, as far as I can tell they've been pretty productive so far.

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by jlousa

I don't mind the private meetings, lets be honest if they start misbehaving they will be ousted pretty quick as the public won't stand for it. Until that happens let them go at it, as far as I can tell they've been pretty productive so far.

Couldn't have said it better myself.....and for those who are complaining about that wage increase a few months ago, it's well deserved. Consider that these people are professionals and entrepreneurs, not elected politicians.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by marmorek

It's a democracy. The public has the right to know how their tax dollars are being spent.

I agree with you, but that can be accomplished by just publishing the minutes. Completely open meetings means being interrupted constantly by the Bus Rider's Union and the like.

[deasine]

I'm fine with them doing it closed doors too. Let's keep it this way and see how much productivity goes on... there isn't enough time to access the pros and cons of both.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by deasine

I'm fine with them doing it closed doors too. Let's keep it this way and see how much productivity goes on... there isn't enough time to access the pros and cons of both.

Wow - I'm surprised. I thought that making decisions in private on spending taxpayers money was only acceptable in an autocratic society.

Don't forget, Bill M203 also requires Translink to allow representations to be made to the Board - that is very important.

Local governments must operate in open meetings, so why should Translink be any different?

[mr.x]

There's a point when there's actually too much democracy, hindering progress and productivity.

i.e. just take a look at the states....nothing ever gets done because of the time consuming public process, not to mention that the public shoots everything down.

[bugsy]

Originally Posted by lightrail

Local governments must operate in open meetings, so why should Translink be any different?

Translink is no local government. It is under the jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia, and they can run it as they see fit.

[SFUVancouver]

Without explicitly taking a position at the outset, consider this; if the meetings were open to the public then the real meeting would be that of the executive committee and that would be that. With the current governance model the full meetings would be a potempkin charade.

With that said it is astounding that this private member's bill has even had to be contemplated since these meetings should absolutely be open to the public and the media. It's our money and our city and we have a right to see what's going on. The fishbowl some speak of is a good thing as far as I'm concerned, and as large as the budget for Translink is it is still quaint compared to things at a Provincial or Federal level and those are hammered out by elected, accountable, representatives of the public and their staff in an immense nationally televised fishbowl. It's messy, embarassing, and often incomprehensible but for the public it works better than a dictatorship.

To be honest I'm thrilled by the thought that Translink's appointed board will ram through some serious transit expansion in the coming years and to hell with the naysayers and NIMBYs, but the process matters more and what we have now doesn't pass muster as far as I'm concerned.

[lightrail]

Originally Posted by bugsy

Translink is no local government. It is under the jurisdiction of the Province of British Columbia, and they can run it as they see fit.

Totally disagree. The Provincial government is also democratically elected. Except for specific reasons, meetings of any decision making body should be open to the public to watch, and within limits, make representations. I'm against the way BC Ferries was set up for the same reasons. I don't believe "corporate interests" are better than public interest.

I really can't believe the attitude to this on this board.

You're advocating taxation without representation. Just insane. We fought wars to stop this kind of thing (on a much larger scale of course).

I hate it too when we get bogged down in studies and NIMBY - I'd love to see the lines just built - but you know what, this is the democratic system. I think we have a good balance. I'm not suggesting we get everybody to vote on everything, just that people have to right to watch the decision making process and to speak their mind in some form.

Guess we'll agree to disagree.

[Kwik-E-Mart]

Originally Posted by quobobo

I agree with you, but that can be accomplished by just publishing the minutes. Completely open meetings means being interrupted constantly by the Bus Rider's Union and the like.

Also don't forget about the various neighbourhood associations!

Some people just do not want the Region to "grow up"

[mr.x]

Originally Posted by Kwik-E-Mart

Also don't forget about the various neighbourhood associations!

Some people just do not want the Region to "grow up"

....like that NIMBY group that didn't want a new 16th Avenue bus route, for the most absurd reasons and selfish excuses.

[deasine]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

....like that NIMBY group that didn't want a new 16th Avenue bus route, for the most absurd reasons and selfish excuses.

or the 33 route *groan*

And funny thing is, many of the groups know they'll loose... but they still like to make this big fuss...

[Bert]

Originally Posted by mr.x2

Couldn't have said it better myself.....and for those who are complaining about that wage increase a few months ago, it's well deserved. Consider that these people are professionals and entrepreneurs, not elected politicians.

Sure, that's how much these people may expect to be compensated, given their incomes, but, looking at their profiles, most lack expertise in transportation - many are just businesspeople representing their various industries. I would not have such a problem with the board getting big money to ensure we attract some of the best people, if it was wholly comprised of transportation economists, transportation academics/researchers, and transportation/urban planners. With the current board structure though, I'd say it's taxpayer dollars grossly misspent.

If it were up to me to re-appoint the board, the only one I'd keep for sure is Cindy Chan Piper for her urban planning expertise. Probably, I'd keep Nancy Olewiler too, for her economics background and sustainability research. Maybe, I'd keep Robert Tribe, as there could be some value to having a project managing engineer on this board. At the most, I'd keep one big business guy - Dale Parker, if forced to choose - but he certainly wouldn't be Chair. I'd let go of the other five though, and find more specialized people in the areas I noted above.

I also have to disagree with the parallels you've drawn to YVR's board in the past (or at least, I think it was you, mr.x). Translink is not about making a buck first and foremost like YVR - it's about getting people (and goods to a lesser extent) where they need to go efficiently. I just don't see this board being very successful in the people part of that at least.

[SpongeG]

than i guess they need to make bc ferries meetings public and on and on and on

they are better closed so work can get done

either way the public is screwed over

[MistyMountainHop]

It's the first step towards privatization.

[quobobo]

Originally Posted by marmorek

It's the first step towards privatization.