Castanet

XT225 wrote:

rustled wrote:If I'm reading it right, he did not do what he was supposed to do at the polling station: exit through the rear of the building. (As far as I could tell, the exit route was not optional.)

This begs the question, why did Vassilaki choose instead to take a route the was expected not to take, a route which took him past the line-up of people who had not yet voted?

Where is it written that he was supposed to leave by the rear exit? If there is any truth to that requirement, perhaps he was just taking the shortest route to their vehicle for his mother who has mobility issues.

It's my understanding Vassilaki voted at the Seniors' Drop-In. We were to enter through the doors from the foyer, where people were lined up, and exit out the doors which lead to the path to the parking lot. While I was there, officials stopped one person from heading back the way he came, and pointed him to the proper exit.

I do not recall there being any stairs at that location, although twobits assures us there are. If so, I'd think it would be one or two shallow steps at most. It's a pretty level property, intended for seniors, and I'd be quite surprised if it is difficult for mobility challenged people to exit through what's provided for emergency exits.

Depending on which booth one used to make one's X, the expected route would not necessarily have been longer. Still, it may well be that there were exceptions made for those with disabilities who voted at the nearest booths to the entrance, and that Vassilaki's mother was offered that option. Also, that portion of the foyer is short and the number of people whose hands one could shake would have been quite small.

Regardless of whether or not this complaint had any legitimacy at all, nothing will come of it. Not because it's Vassilaki, but because the rules against campaigning at polling stations have not been enforced previously when there were far more blatant examples of rule-beraking. So even if there was no legitimate reason for Vassilaki to exit through the entrance, these rules will not be enforced post-election this time, either.

rustled wrote:It's my understanding Vassilaki voted at the Seniors' Drop-In. We were to enter through the doors from the foyer, where people were lined up, and exit out the doors which lead to the path to the parking lot. While I was there, officials stopped one person from heading back the way he came, and pointed him to the proper exit.

I do not recall there being any stairs at that location, although twobits assures us there are. If so, I'd think it would be one or two shallow steps at most. It's a pretty level property, intended for seniors, and I'd be quite surprised if it is difficult for mobility challenged people to exit through what's provided for emergency exits.

Depending on which booth one used to make one's X, the expected route would not necessarily have been longer. Still, it may well be that there were exceptions made for those with disabilities who voted at the nearest booths to the entrance, and that Vassilaki's mother was offered that option. Also, that portion of the foyer is short and the number of people whose hands one could shake would have been quite small.

Regardless of whether or not this complaint had any legitimacy at all, nothing will come of it. Not because it's Vassilaki, but because the rules against campaigning at polling stations have not been enforced previously when there were far more blatant examples of rule-beraking. So even if there was no legitimate reason for Vassilaki to exit through the entrance, these rules will not be enforced post-election this time, either.

The whole accusation is unsubstantiated and just sour grapes by those who voted for the other candidates. So, wonder what Vassalaki did while IN the lineup, going IN? Would he ignore anyone who greeted him and offered their handshake? I doubt that any candidate would refuse such an offer. Nothing will come out of this as there is nothing to it.

XT225 wrote:The whole accusation is unsubstantiated and just sour grapes by those who voted for the other candidates. So, wonder what Vassalaki did while IN the lineup, going IN? Would he ignore anyone who greeted him and offered their handshake? I doubt that any candidate would refuse such an offer. Nothing will come out of this as there is nothing to it.

I tend to agree. The facts surrounding the initial "incident" are scarce and for the most part lack credibility. I don't think any official complaint was made, this sounds more like facebook gossip and pot-stirring. I'd like to think that our mayor elect would have enough on the ball to be aware of the optics whenever he is in public, and that he would govern himself accordingly. If he is prone to stretching the rules, or having the odd seniors' moment of his own, there are a couple of thousand people in town who would be happy to oblige him with free advice, but it's likely he'll get it anyways. :)

Anyone concerned about shaking hands in the "in" lineup won't have much of a leg to stand on.

It's the choice to exit through the entrance that interests me, so I'll wait to hear more before dismissing it out-of-hand as "unsubstantiated". At this point, it seems to me the complainant may have a point, although I expect if so it will prove moot.

I'd agree these complaints are most often raised by those disgruntled with the results. That doesn't mean the candidate was in full compliance with the rules. As we've seen, nor does a lack of charges mean the candidate was in full compliance with the rules. Even in clearer cases of infractions by thoroughly experienced candidates (signs too close to a voting place, for example), nothing has happened post-election.

Why would anyone expect an example to be made, post-election, in this case? I certainly don't.

On the other had, why do these rules even exist?

fluffy wrote:I tend to agree. The facts surrounding the initial "incident" are scarce and for the most part lack credibility. I don't think any official complaint was made, this sounds more like facebook gossip and pot-stirring. I'd like to think that our mayor elect would have enough on the ball to be aware of the optics whenever he is in public, and that he would govern himself accordingly. If he is prone to stretching the rules, or having the odd seniors' moment of his own, there are a couple of thousand people in town who would be happy to oblige him with free advice, but it's likely he'll get it anyways. :)

Darkre wrote:https://www.similkameenspotlight.com/news/pentictons-mayor-elect-already-under-scrutiny/#

Apparently someone in Penticton is under investigation for election offenses. Story implies it is Vas.

“The Penticton RCMP are currently investigating an offence under the Local Government Act, allegedly having been committed by a candidate. No further information is being released at this time,” said Const. James Grandy

Would there be an investigation without an official complaint?

Doesn't matter which candidate, nothing will happen. These rules do not seem to be important enough to be enforced post-election.

It sounds like the Elections Officer took it upon himself to investigate after becoming aware of a post on facebook. Like you say though, without anyone stepping forward with testimony to dispute what Mr. Vassilaki is saying it can't really go anywhere.

Last council meeting with the old guard this week.
One, myself anyway, hope the third place finish for the incumbent is a reflection for decisions on some very contentious decisions. Taking the Fire fighters to court not long after signing a labour contract stating they should not get paid the same because this is the Okanagan and we can't pay the union rate. Just a dumb move in my opinion..
Note to future mayor hopefuls, getting punted in four years is the result of fateful decisions.

seewood wrote:Last council meeting with the old guard this week.
One, myself anyway, hope the third place finish for the incumbent is a reflection for decisions on some very contentious decisions. Taking the Fire fighters to court not long after signing a labour contract stating they should not get paid the same because this is the Okanagan and we can't pay the union rate. Just a dumb move in my opinion..
Note to future mayor hopefuls, getting punted in four years is the result of fateful decisions.

You do know that union rates even within the same union can vary from one geographic location to another right?
Sorry to disagree with you on this one but claiming to deserve the same pay as what Fire Fighters in a location such as Vancouver face compared to Penticton has no merit.
I appreciate the job and the occasional risks taken by our local members, but the reality is the job pays close to 100k a yr with benefits for just a 10 yr member and has a requirement of grade 12. Also comes with a full pension for life after 20 yrs of 2 day shifts, two sleepover shifts, and four days off to pursue another part time business.
And only available if you know someone in the Fire Dept in order to get hired. The nepotism in the Fire Dept is shocking.
Personally I am very tired of taxpayers being milked by family legacy jobs that are pretty cushy.
Challenge me and I can throw out some familial ties that will embarrass a bunch of people.

twobits wrote:Sorry to disagree with you on this one but claiming to deserve the same pay as what Fire Fighters in a location such as Vancouver face compared to Penticton has no merit.

The nature of the calls are in fact may be the same( structure, industrial, aircraft, Marine rescue, auto ex..), just the frequency is different.

Actually I do agree, however, me thinks Penticton could have brought that up at negotiation time, not after the agreement was made.
I believe Penticton dropped the ball and a few lawyers had their mortgage payments covered for a few months.
By far the majority of Penticton Fire calls are medical first response. I saw stats from all departments in the area about 8 years ago. From Penticton's 2400 calls, think it was 2100 or so were first response. Many of those the ambulance arrived first.
Armchair experts pontificated Penticton could have the night shift at #2 hall done by POC staying at the hall. Union wouldn't have any part of it though.

Think it was Langley where they have a few career ff's and then most are city employees doing city things at city union rates. Call comes in and they move up to FF rates for the call.
Squamish has a Mon.-Friday Career component at IFFA union rates. They don't or didn't do FR calls.
Seniors I believe want the first response program so Penticton has it and gives the department a high call count.

Hear everything you are saying. But I do believe pay equity with Vancouver Firefighters was one of the major reasons for the legal challenge.
I would also be interested in your view on nepotism within the Department? Please don't say you don't know when very clearly you are close to the situation. Shall I throw out a few last names and in-law connections?

twobits wrote:Hear everything you are saying. But I do believe pay equity with Vancouver Firefighters was one of the major reasons for the legal challenge.I would also be interested in your view on nepotism within the Department? Please don't say you don't know when very clearly you are close to the situation. Shall I throw out a few last names and in-law connections?

PM sent.

seewood wrote:
PM sent.

Received and replied to. Appreciate your consideration of sensitive information. But for the public record, taxpayers really need to pay more attention to the actual value they receive for each taxpayer funded service they provide. The City would have likely been successful had their been some actual taxpayer feedback that was not drowned out by a few dozen letters to the editor about remunerating "hero's" who spend 90% of calls responding to fender benders and directing traffic.
All while the real people that should be called "hero's" are the SARS volunteers. And I acknowledge that some FF's are SARS people, but not many. Most of them are not fit enough for the job.

Hey just read Jason Cox screwed up his campaign expense submission( second time ). Isn’t the City fourtante that Cox wasn’t elected ? City would have been dogged by his mistakes and lack of attention to detail. He talks a big game but can’t walk the talk .

Chessman wrote:Hey just read Jason Cox screwed up his campaign expense submission( second time ). Isn’t the City fourtante that Cox wasn’t elected ? City would have been dogged by his mistakes and lack of attention to detail. He talks a big game but can’t walk the talk .

Nope, we're not fortunate for that...I'll forgive the guy a 262 dollar omission. Peanuts in the overall context. What we are fortunate about is your "man", who spent double anyone else, ended up in third place.
Jak did make the record books though I believe. The only incumbent Mayor running for reelection in Penticton that came in third place. What was his election cost per vote received compared to all the other contenders lol? Post those numbers Chessman.

twobits....U missed the point. My post has nothing to do with “my guy” or cost per vote. Cox screws up ...plain and simple (his campaign filing history clearly demonstrates that) . Don’t give me any sh*t about it was only “X” dollars. He is only refiling because the Herald caught his mistake. He was blind to his mistake. Unconscious incompetence? Many would say ...yes.
He talks a big game and can’t deliver. Better he focuses on his pop business. That will make him rich .
BTW all three candidates that ran for Mayor were unacceptable in my view. Jak was the best of very bad lot in my opinion. I had hoped some really capable candidates would have run but they didn’t.

This site allows for an expression of opinion..I posted mine ,you post yours .