Katie Robinson running for Mayor

[XT225]

It's official....Katie Robinson is running for the Mayor of Penticton this November. What a breath of fresh air she would be. With the moral in the city at an all time low this is an opportunity to bring about some real change within. Odd that one of the first priorities of the new CAO (her words) was that she was going to boost moral amoung city staff. According to the people that I've spoken to, she has done just the opposite. Katie Robinson was a great councillor a few years back and she has the stamina and drive to turn things around in the city if you ask me. This is the best news that we have heard in a long while. All I can say is "out with the old an in with the new". Go Katie, go!

[fluffy]

That was an impressive front page spread for sure but as for content all I saw was another politician trotting out the well-worn and obvious. She hit all the hotspots: SOEC, City staff layoffs, jobs in general, 911 dispatch, she even brought up the sidewalk project issue, but I saw no mention of what her alternatives would be. This is a time-honoured political tactic of whipping the electorate into an emotional frenzy over recent sore spots and fostering resentment against current council without offering anything resembling solutions to the problems. She's going to need something a little more substantial to get my vote.

[twobits]

That was an impressive front page spread for sure but as for content all I saw was another politician trotting out the well-worn and obvious. She hit all the hotspots: SOEC, City staff layoffs, jobs in general, 911 dispatch, she even brought up the sidewalk project issue, but I saw no mention of what her alternatives would be. This is a time-honoured political tactic of whipping the electorate into an emotional frenzy over recent sore spots and fostering resentment against current council without offering anything resembling solutions to the problems. She's going to need something a little more substantial to get my vote.

I would agree with you fluff. Actually I have known Katie for over 20 years and consider her a friend. I was quite disappointed in what she said in that article and will be sure to ask her about some of her comments when next I see her. The 911 dispatch comment was out of line. It was the RDOS directors that brought down the local dispatch......there was nothing anyone on council could do except vote against it only to be defeated. What could she have possibly done different? And city staff levels!! She has obviousy not read the reports. City staff became bloated and some lazy AFTER she left council and during Jake Kimberly years. A streamling was desperately needed as well as a cull of the deadwood collecting paycheques. Knowing Katie I think she would have done the same had she been on council and why I am shocked at the comments. I think we will find her rhetoric on the hot button topics will mellow once she gets fully up to speed in the campaign. I truely like the woman but she is going to have to present some damn good reasoning for those comments before she will earn my vote as well.

[Tero]

She lost my vote at wanting to do more for city staff. Cry me a river about your well paying job.... probably not! She wants to show more appreciation? Say "Thanks very much, you work hard, and I appreciate you." End of story.

[XT225]

I am truly surprised by a few negative responses to the article on Katie. I've known her for many years and she is an honest, hardworking and solid individual. The article was not written by her but rather by John Moorehouse (who is also a fair reporter); many things can be taken out of context when not written directly by the subject. She may lack certain inside information, true; however her sincere concern over moral (which directly relates to productivity) is admirable. It has to be cleaned up; the present mayor and council are doing nothing in that regard. I cannot forget a tv interview with our present mayor where he talked about having just lost good paying jobs; he seemed somewhat sincere but when the last word came out of his mouth, he snickered. That gave away his true feelings and lost my vote forever. His nose pulled a "Gordon Campbell" at that point. We cannot afford to lose any more jobs in this city; both city and private workers. The SOEC, though a wonderful facility is a huge drain on our finances. It has been said that it costs over 3 million to keep it open and $800,000 if it were closed and mothballed until we CAN run it in better times, someday. Maybe thats an unrealistic idea but CAN we keep losing 2 million every year; that is the question. I saw nothing in that article that would make me NOT want to see Katie in the Mayor's seat. Lets hear it from some of the positive folks out there. Gods Speed, Katie! ps: bonus - Katies lives in Penticton!

[spacecadet]

I'm so glad that someone with integrity and experience has thrown her hat in the ring. I think it's great that someone has stepped up to try and do something, instead of blowing hot air all over these forums. You armchair politicians are really great at pointing out the negative in someone. I think it's time we give someone else a chance. Our present Council has had plenty of time and done nothing but run us into the ground.

And we all know how the media likes to take comments out of context. It happens all the time with a sideswiping editorial to accompany the article as well.

My hope? An all female Council!

[glassmaster]

I'm glad she has thrown her hat in to the ring as well ... she is a credible candidate. However, I have to agree with some of the other posters - I wasn't impressed with some of her comments. She seemed to get on the 'blame' bandwagon for things that were necessary - (like laying off some city staffers that needed to go). I will be interested to hear the rest of her platform ... but this first interview has me guarded on what she would bring to the table.

[twobits]

The SOEC, though a wonderful facility is a huge drain on our finances. It has been said that it costs over 3 million to keep it open and $800,000 if it were closed and mothballed until we CAN run it in better times, someday. Maybe thats an unrealistic idea but CAN we keep losing 2 million every year; that is the question.

Source for those bullchit numbers please!!!!!!!!!!! "It has been said"? That is so lame a statement that it is only worthy of the other fear mongering crew. While we don't always agree, I expected better of you XT.

[spacecadet]

Have you people all missed the point that even though there were huge layoffs at the City - they have all but been replaced? Explain to me where the savings are there? Made them look good for about ONE month.

[fluffy]

Have you people all missed the point that even though there were huge layoffs at the City - they have all but been replaced? Explain to me where the savings are there? Made them look good for about ONE month.

The way these people were let go and then subsequently replaced hints at something other than redundant or unnecessary positions being eliminated. It smacks of unproductive deadwood being put out to pasture.

[glassmaster]

Have you people all missed the point that even though there were huge layoffs at the City - they have all but been replaced? Explain to me where the savings are there? Made them look good for about ONE month.

The way these people were let go and then subsequently replaced hints at something other than redundant or unnecessary positions being eliminated. It smacks of unproductive deadwood being put out to pasture.

I agree Fluffy ... and I admire the current Mayor and Council for having the guts to do something that needed to be done ... even though it was bound to cause them grief.

[XT225]

The SOEC, though a wonderful facility is a huge drain on our finances. It has been said that it costs over 3 million to keep it open and $800,000 if it were closed and mothballed until we CAN run it in better times, someday. Maybe thats an unrealistic idea but CAN we keep losing 2 million every year; that is the question.

Source for those bullchit numbers please!!!!!!!!!!! "It has been said"? That is so lame a statement that it is only worthy of the other fear mongering crew. While we don't always agree, I expected better of you XT.

Woh...twobits, don't get so excited now....did we hit a nerve or what. I maybe shouldn't have quoted that 3 mil figure without written proof however I did hear it from a reliable source inside the City. If I could find it in print I would produce it. If you have accurate figures on different profits and losses, please show us. I don't totally agree that with the 3 mil figure either; and think that perhaps it included the projected losses in the new Community Centre. The city admitted that they didn't realize that the cost of operation (not the grant money to build it) afterwards would be that much higher than the old pool. Don't get me started on the pool though, as we couldve had a perfectly good "renovated" pool with some minor additions for 4 million; yet we took the Govt carrot and grant and ended up 7 mil in the hole. Sure its a nicer pool but was it worth the 3 mil? Time will tell. I do have some statements in writing that I find interesting:

Operating Deficits

Despite Global Spectrum’s promise to increase the number of events in the area to between 60 and 85 and generate significant revenue, after its first year of operation the SOEC was $1.6 million in deficit. The total losses for the three facilities run by Global Spectrum were over $2.1 million. Initially Penticton Mayor Dan Ashton defended the private company saying, “New businesses aren’t that profitable right off the start. It does need some track time and usually it’s up to two years before businesses start seeing black instead of red.” However, mounting deficits forced him to admit in May 2010 that the SOEC was a significant and ongoing drain on the City’s financial resources: “We’re going to be in a structural deficit with this and for how long – I don’t want to guess.”The deficits are blamed on poor attendance, an inability to compete against Nanaimo and Vancouver for large conventions and the limited number of high-end hotel spaces in the City. The poor attendance itself has been linked to unrealistic expectations, high ticket prices, user fees and concession costs. Some local hockey fans have also complained about Global Spectrum’s policies and security practices.

I think we are kinda getting off topic here; lets try to stick to the subject at hand - the race for Mayor is heating up and many people will be happy about that. Change is in the air and it has a sweet smell; it really does. I repeat: "Go Katie, Go!"

[twobits]

Have you people all missed the point that even though there were huge layoffs at the City - they have all but been replaced? Explain to me where the savings are there? Made them look good for about ONE month.

You are overstating the re-hiring. There were some hires after the layoffs but not in identical positions and at different pay scales. A significant portion of those now gone were redundant deadwood and terminating their positions was the only way to get rid of them. And believe it or not, paying out severance packages, as distastful as the numbers were in some cases, still made economic sense and long term savings in operaring costs.

Say you had a Chartered Accountant doing your tax return and he surfed the web while a lowly clerk actually did your return in about 4 weeks and you get billed $500. Would you continue to patronize him if there was a CGA accross the street who would do your return personally in a week and charged you $200? Required skill set is there, one less person, more efficient, and $300 in your jeans. Get the picture now?

[fluffy]

For too long now there has been a segment of the work force that sees government jobs (including elected positions) as "easy money". Those people come to mind the minute I see candidates trotting out the old catch-phrases and cheap tactics. I'm hoping that in Katie's case those feelings are premature and that she will soon be coming forth with the real goods.

What has to change and why, and how are you going to do it?

[twobits]

The SOEC, though a wonderful facility is a huge drain on our finances. It has been said that it costs over 3 million to keep it open and $800,000 if it were closed and mothballed until we CAN run it in better times, someday. Maybe thats an unrealistic idea but CAN we keep losing 2 million every year; that is the question.

Nothing to do with Katie but......
Current projected operating deficit for the SOEC is down to 800k. To me it makes sense to pay that amount and have the opportunity to see some great acts, Urban, Brooks and Dunn, ZZ Top, Reba, Cosby, Cirque etc as well as a first class facilty to watch the Vee's than pay the same, 800k, to mothball it.
The convention centre over it's entire history has never run in the black and people are using it's perpetual structural deficit as ammunition against the SOEC by not differentiating the two. Plus add on the deficit of memorial too boot!
Don't get me started on the pool either. Projected operating deficit between 2.1 and 2.4 million. For what? So that 500? or so regulars, 30% of which live outside the city and pay no taxes towards it, can swim for cheap year round. Ya, that's a keeper!