Penticton Election

[twobits]

http://www.castanet.net/news/Municipal- ... te-tonight

An event to encourage people to get out and vote on Nov. 15 with be held tonight, Thursday, in Penticton.

Rock the Vote will take place from 6 to 10 p.m. at the Barking Parrot Bar and Grill inside the Lakeside Resort and Casino.

Mayoral candidate Andrew Jakubeit says he organized it as a way to get more people voting in the upcoming election.

"Voter turnout traditionally has been below 30 per cent and whatever we can do to remind people to go out and vote should hopefully increase interest and turnout which is a good thing," he says.

Jakubeit had originally thought about doing a fundraiser just for his campaign. But thought something like this to nudge people on Nov. 15 would be better.

Furthermore all funds raised will fund a social media campaign to 'Get out and Vote,' not for any particular candidate. Sirf Marketing is handling that online campaign.

The bands, Silent Alarm and Cosmic Brew are slated to perform. The bands include young musicians with a lot of talent, according to Jakubeit.

There will be a burger and a beer for $10 and admission by donation.

I hope the cost of putting on this show, including the bands, is disclosed in Jak's election financial disclosure. And at actual cost of what the Barking Parrot would charge to any other group.
This is such a blatant end run around election financing support by "Mr I want my picture in the paper hotelier" that I want to gag. And on a premise that it is "get out to vote" promotion no less.

"Jakubeit had originally thought about doing a fundraiser just for his campaign. But thought something like this to nudge people on Nov. 15 would be better."


Ya sure Jak, nice try at taking the high road. I am surprised you didn't offer up free bike flat repairs and skate sharpening too with the ten dollar burger and "donation".

[rustled]

...Remember though, a Mayor does not work alone so it kind of doesn't matter who gets in - (doesn't the mayor only tie break when it's 3-3?) there's 6 more people's opinions at work as well.

You're right, mayors don't usually need to vote. But they do need to be able to motivate their team and keep it focused. (There's a good post in the Kelowna thread about this.)

I'd add to that: They also represent us and our interests at various other tables around the province, and in the media both here and elsewhere. I was out of province when the "scandal" over Frank the Baggage Handler broke, and it was interesting to see how our then-mayor's reaction was perceived by non-locals. That was a only minor issue, but with today's focus on attracting suitable industry to the area, how our city is perceived could actually matter. When our mayor speaks, we'd want those listening to think "We could work with this person and the citizens who elected him. Let's take a closer look at Penticton."

[twobits]

You're right, mayors don't usually need to vote.

Sorry but you are incorrect. If the Mayor is present at a meeting, he/she must vote. Just as every councillor must vote. Refusal to vote on a motion when present at the meeting is considered an affirmative vote unless a member abstains for personal or conflict of interest reasons which must be declared.
The Mayor does not only vote when there is a tie vote, the Mayor votes every time. Tie votes, are also always considered defeated. That will occur when one or more councillors are absent but there is still a sufficient number present to satisfy quorum.

[livewire]

Are you sure it's a 'must vote' or is it a 'can' vote?

[Anonymous123]

...Remember though, a Mayor does not work alone so it kind of doesn't matter who gets in - (doesn't the mayor only tie break when it's 3-3?) there's 6 more people's opinions at work as well.

You're right, mayors don't usually need to vote. But they do need to be able to motivate their team and keep it focused. (There's a good post in the Kelowna thread about this.)

I'd add to that: They also represent us and our interests at various other tables around the province, and in the media both here and elsewhere. I was out of province when the "scandal" over Frank the Baggage Handler broke, and it was interesting to see how our then-mayor's reaction was perceived by non-locals. That was a only minor issue, but with today's focus on attracting suitable industry to the area, how our city is perceived could actually matter. When our mayor speaks, we'd want those listening to think "We could work with this person and the citizens who elected him. Let's take a closer look at Penticton."

From the Kelowna Thread:

Section 116 of the Community Charter reads as follows:
Responsibilities of mayor
116 (1) The mayor is the head and chief executive officer of the municipality.
(2) In addition to the mayor's responsibilities as a member of council, the mayor has the following responsibilities:
(a) to provide leadership to the council, including by recommending bylaws, resolutions and other measures that, in the mayor's opinion, may assist the peace, order and good government of the municipality;
(b) to communicate information to the council;
(c) to preside at council meetings when in attendance;
(d) to provide, on behalf of the council, general direction to municipal officers respecting implementation of municipal policies, programs and other directions of the council;
(e) to establish standing committees in accordance with section 141;
(f) to suspend municipal officers and employees in accordance with section 151;
(g) to reflect the will of council and to carry out other duties on behalf of the council;
(h) to carry out other duties assigned under this or any other Act.

http://www.bclaws.ca/civix/document/LOC ... Charter%20[SBC%202003]%20c.%2026/00_Act/03026_05.xml#division_d2e10514

[Anonymous123]

Are you sure it's a 'must vote' or is it a 'can' vote?

Section 116-2 " as a member of council"

[rustled]

Thank you for correcting that misconception, twobits.

Anyone interested in Penticton's own bylaws can find them here:
http://www.penticton.ca/assets/City~Hall/Bylaws/Administration/Council%20Procedures%20Bylaw%202004-23.pdf

Regardless of voting procedure, though, the mayor's responsibilities go far beyond that single vote. Reading through the bylaws, it's easy to see how someone without council experience could be hugely problematic. I'm pleased our most likely candidates for mayor both have enough experience on council to understand these responsibilities.

Rather than looking at how each of them is likely to vote on this specific issue or that, I'm looking at the bigger picture, which one I think will be most likely to help council work together as an effective team, stay focused, and represent our interests well.

[twobits]

Rather than looking at how each of them is likely to vote on this specific issue or that, I'm looking at the bigger picture, which one I think will be most likely to help council work together as an effective team, stay focused, and represent our interests well.

The big picture? That is a loaded statement.
They both have adequate council experience to run the meeting. And like I have said in past posts, my feeling is that it is a 55/45 thing toward Vas.
While I do not oppose much of Jak's voting history, your comment in your post really drives home the split for me. And I quote from you....."and represent our interests well.".
What I see is that Vas has little to gain by being Mayor. Already successful from humble roots. At his age he has no intention of pursuing future higher level politics and pension. Jak on the other hand I am not so sure about. And much of what he has promoted, and touted, is rather special interest towards hockey and biking. Is Jak representing the communities interest.....or his own vision?

[rustled]

Good points, twobits. Chatting with folk around town, I think your numbers are pretty accurate.

J.V. may do a good job of representing us outside the community and thinking progressively,instead of (as some fear) shooting from the hip and relying too heavily on what's worked in the past. If elected, will he attend UBCMs and speak well on our behalf when approached by the media?

A.J. may do a good job of representing concerns from the industrial sector and others, instead of (as some fear) focusing on his own personal favourites and disregarding other important issues. If elected, will he promote the broader community interests and work hard to earn another term in office?

[XT225]

The big picture? That is a loaded statement.
They both have adequate council experience to run the meeting. And like I have said in past posts, my feeling is that it is a 55/45 thing toward Vas.
While I do not oppose much of Jak's voting history, your comment in your post really drives home the split for me. And I quote from you....."and represent our interests well.".
What I see is that Vas has little to gain by being Mayor. Already successful from humble roots. At his age he has no intention of pursuing future higher level politics and pension. Jak on the other hand I am not so sure about. And much of what he has promoted, and touted, is rather special interest towards hockey and biking. Is Jak representing the communities interest.....or his own vision?

I completely agree with you on John V. He has no interest in moving on to Provincial or Federal politics. I can see A.J. however trying for a seat under Harper someday, if he were to do a stint as mayor; similar type personalities. No thanks. I don't think that J.V. will put as much tax dollars into more expensive and little used bike lanes or favoring hockey, etc as A.J. would wish to do. A mayor should represent the wishes of the majority; not specific interest groups, solely. I also admire J.V. for his disliking of the one-employee city hall situation. Andrew on the other hand likes it just like it is. My vote goes to John Vassalaki.

[rustled]

I completely agree with you on John V. He has no interest in moving on to Provincial or Federal politics. I can see A.J. however trying for a seat under Harper someday, if he were to do a stint as mayor; similar type personalities. No thanks. I don't think that J.V. will put as much tax dollars into more expensive and little used bike lanes or favoring hockey, etc as A.J. would wish to do. A mayor should represent the wishes of the majority; not specific interest groups, solely. I also admire J.V. for his disliking of the one-employee city hall situation. Andrew on the other hand likes it just like it is. My vote goes to John Vassalaki.

Wouldn't A.J. have to do his best to represent us well, all of us, if he expects to some day be successful in moving on to provincial or federal politics?

And while the mayor should represent the wishes of an informed majority (if there ever is such a thing), shouldn't the mayor also represent the genuine needs of the minority? No, I'm not talking about bike lanes and hockey. I'm thinking of the needs of our small industrial base, which is sometimes at risk of being overshadowed by the outcry of the majority.

[XT225]

Wouldn't A.J. have to do his best to represent us well, all of us, if he expects to some day be successful in moving on to provincial or federal politics?

And while the mayor should represent the wishes of an informed majority (if there ever is such a thing), shouldn't the mayor also represent the genuine needs of the minority? No, I'm not talking about bike lanes and hockey. I'm thinking of the needs of our small industrial base, which is sometimes at risk of being overshadowed by the outcry of the majority.

A.J. has mainly been concerned over Hockey and bike lanes. That's not the majority of the populace. A good mayor represents the minority of course but has to think of the overall taxpayers, period. John V. is as concerned, if not more concerned about improving the Industrial Area and adding good paying jobs. Andrew does not display much in the way of leadership qualities, either. Nope, am sticking with John Vassalaki.

[rustled]

Wouldn't A.J. have to do his best to represent us well, all of us, if he expects to some day be successful in moving on to provincial or federal politics?

And while the mayor should represent the wishes of an informed majority (if there ever is such a thing), shouldn't the mayor also represent the genuine needs of the minority? No, I'm not talking about bike lanes and hockey. I'm thinking of the needs of our small industrial base, which is sometimes at risk of being overshadowed by the outcry of the majority.

A.J. has mainly been concerned over Hockey and bike lanes. That's not the majority of the populace. A good mayor represents the minority of course but has to think of the overall taxpayers, period. John V. is as concerned, if not more concerned about improving the Industrial Area and adding good paying jobs. Andrew does not display much in the way of leadership qualities, either. Nope, am sticking with John Vassalaki.

Please don't feel I'm trying to convince anyone one way or the other. I haven't made up my own mind yet, which is why I'm still asking questions.

[XT225]

Please don't feel I'm trying to convince anyone one way or the other. I haven't made up my own mind yet, which is why I'm still asking questions.

No problem, rustled. A lot of people are still undecided. I WAS leaning towards Jackebeit but what really swayed me over was his liking the one employee rule at city hall. That is the opposite of John V's stance; he isn't afraid to speak up and is a true leader. Andrew also favors the narrowing of Main Street; John isn't convinced that would be beneficial. I agree with John.

[rustled]

Lots of issues to look at (and angles to look at them from) this time. Wish I had time to review more council meetings.