District of North Vancouver councillors will debate today on creating a policy that would require all council members to declare any campaign contribution they may have received from any developer or his associates before voting on a development brought forward by that applicant.
Once such a declaration is made, the council member would be encouraged to recuse themselves from voting on that specific development. The council motion, brought forward by Councillor Jim Hanson, would also push for an internet link of the campaign financing disclosure statements to be prominently placed on the DNV web page. The motion also calls upon the Mayor or the Acting mayor to request the full disclosure of campaign donations before any discussion or voting happens on any application.
“As locally elected representatives of our community, we must be open and honest about our motivations. Whatever the truth may be, many voters in the District suspect a linkage between the voting records of certain Councillors and their receipt of campaign finance from development companies
Creating such a policy would foster greater transparency and accountability, according to the motion. In the last municipal elections, the provincial government introduced a reform of campaign donations rule, banning corporate and union donations and limiting individual donations to $1,200 to any one candidate or a party. But the legislation doesn’t deal with the issue of corporations seeking to make political donations indirectly through people affiliated with the company, says the motion.
For example, the motion says, a candidate received funds from the spouse of the President of a major North Shore development company, and another candidate received funds from a partner of a development company, while another received funds from the president and founder of a development company. The motion goes on to mention Building Bridges slate, which it says received numerous donations from persons associated with corporations engaged in real estate development, including donations from people associated with major development companies operating in North Shore and the region.
“As locally elected representatives of our community, we must be open and honest about our motivations. Whatever the truth may be, many voters in the District suspect a linkage between the voting records of certain Councillors and their receipt of campaign finance from development companies,” Hanson says in the council motion.
The financial contribution often leads to citizen’s questioning the motivation of those who will eventually be voting on those applications. Adopting a policy where councillors declare and acknowledge this conflict will ensure more transparency in the process and accountability in the public mind.
“This proposal will convey a serious commitment on the part of council to regain the trust of the electorate on issues of development, raise awareness of potential corporate influence, and foster an environment of transparency,” says Hanson. Last month, two local citizens appeared before the council and urged councillors to recuse themselves from voting on development which may be connected to their election donors. “Perception is everything, and the average resident will clearly see it as a conflict of interest if you decided to vote on matters that will be monetarily rewarding to any of your financial supporters,” said Eric Andersen.
Andersen said the motion that is up for debate is ‘extremely well prepared and very logical’ but doesn’t go quite far enough, since it only encourages members to abstain rather than creating a policy that would prohibit them. Hanson is also calling upon the council to vigorously debate campaign contributions as well as other issues, real or perceived, that may create an impression of bias and conflict of interest. Those discussions will help hold locally elected officials to a high standard of ethical conduct.
The motion to have a councillor declare names on their donors list prior to voting on issues…is preposterous. So every time an issue comes, say small business, does Megan Currin have to peruse her list for all names that may have small businesses? Really? I’m sure small business did vote to have her voice on council to support them…is that wrong?
Under the Elections BC rules it clearly states any individual can donate to any candidate of their choice, within the 1200 limit, regardless of who they work for or what they do. Under the Election Act – Division 3 — Making and
Accepting Political Contributions paragraph 2 (b) one of the requirements is to record the contribution under section 190 the full name and address of the eligible individual whose money is being used. Not where they work…
To cherry pick names off a list and publicly accuse a fellow member of a lack of transparency and to come to a conclusion or even suggest he’s taking donations from developers, without even knowing the intent of that donation, is unacceptable! That donor could be a friend, cousin, relative, school buddy, friend of a friend…as voters we vote and support who we feel aligns with our wants for the community. What right do you have to discriminate against someone because of who they work for,. I could be pro development, I may have donated to Mayor Little’s campaign, would he know that?
The individual that brought this motion forward – is he on your donors list? Transparency – isn’t that the issue?
But getting back to the issue – on Nov 5, 2018 You all took an Oath of office
• I will faithfully perform the duties of my office, and will not allow any private interest to influence my conduct in public matters;
• as required by the …..[applicable Act]….., I will disclose any direct or indirect pecuniary interest I have in a matter and will not participate in the discussion of the matter and will not vote in respect of the matter.
Done, The lists and all forms have been submitted, accepted. If any constituent has an issue about someone’s donor list, take it to the proper source. This is not a council issue – this is an Elections BC issue. The motion in question should be dismissed.
As a council you have more pressing issues, daycare spots, transportation, housing, our displaced elderly…this is a waste of time on my dime. This Trumponian style of politics doesn’t have a place here… respect each other, work together and when using social media – make sure the content you share – isn’t fake news. Check with your communications people. Let them do their work and you concentrate on yours.
What’s really going on here…? I’m perceiving this as more of an attack on a particular member, and nor do I feel this motion is being brought forward in good faith. It should be dismissed.
You make the assumption that all these donations are determined individually and not in concert with each other. As opposed to a major company deciding they will “individually” make “independent” contributions apart from what each happens to do for a living.
If all or most of a corporate board give “as individuals” in an amount that corporation would be able to give as a corporation there are legitimate questions to be raised that are not preposterous at all.
Then it should be brought to Elections BC for debate – not council.