Peter Haslock - Mayoral Candidate

[waterskirick]

I've sent this to all candidates. A yes or no answer will do.

I'd like to vote for someone with a little spine. Our mayor has stated (unlike all other cadidates) that she will only support a new name that has shown more than 50% support from the whole community. A new name will not help unify us if it only has 30% or 35% support. We need a majority, and if we don't get that, then some kind of run off until we do.

So far I have only one candidate to vote for, Neis for councillor. I'll vote for others only if they show leadership and commit to a 50 + 1% requirement for a new name. Will you commit to this?

[sellpro 46]

Im not sure where to start and as much as I could use your support, I have to reply the only way I can and that seldom means a simple yes or no so here gos.

I cannot support your request because it simply ignores the democratic process and encourages, should you not get the 50 + 1, the drawing out of an issue that has already sparked devisiveness and hard feelings. In a democratic society, we all have the right to vote and our votes have the power to make a difference and if you win by 1, you win. No, that one vote win may not be reflective of a 50 + 1 win but it is a win nevertheless.

I am curious as to the outcome of your vote bequest had Mr. Findlater and I both agreed to your contention? Same applies if hypothetically every council runner felt the same way?

Lastly, using your formula, should Mayor Neiss not have declined her nomination? Im pretty sure she didnt win 50 + 1.

[color=#004080]I respect your right to ask the question and I think that I may understand your motivation. I think that you be of the opinion that this issue is hugely important (which it is) and that the outcome nees to be a convincing majority so as to eliminate any after the fact complaining. But I stand behind my belief in the "win by 1" category.
Thanks

[parachute]

Peter, I have mentioned this before but I guess I must say it again.

There is a WORLD of difference between electing a councillor for a FIXED term of three years and selecting a city name that will define our place in the WORLD for a long time. There is probably not a single soul in Calgary, Vancouver, Manitoba, etc. who would know or care who happened to be a councilor in Westside, but our CITY NAME will be either recognized or dismissed throughout Canada. That is one reason why a plurality in the naming ballot is NOT SUFFICIENT!

I hope you will reconsider your position on this issue (actually my primary hope is that some name gets 55 or more percent and then the problem disappears).

[sellpro 46]

I agrre with you wholeheartedly on the 55 plus and the global implications that our chosen name will likely have. It sounds to me though that you may be suggesting a potentially lengthy game of "do over" if the outcome is not to your liking. Of the names on the ballot, Ime not sure that any of them would necessarily embarass me but more to the point, I stand by my contention that a win is win and that's how the system was set up. I also feel fairly confident that you likely don't have anything to fear. I believe that there will be a clear winner. As for my reconsidering, I understood there to be a decided lack of conviction on council?

Thank you for all of your contributions to date. You are a decidedly provocative individual.

[parachute]

Thank you for all of your contributions to date. You are a decidedly provocative individual.

Thank you – I take that as a positive not a negative. My hope is that my posts provoke thought on the part of the viewer and certainly not anger or anything along those lines. Disagreement? Yes, probably that is a given but that is not all that bad.

I understood there to be a decided lack of conviction on council?

There were times during this last year when I would have modified your statement to read:

There is a decided lack of “conviction” OF council!

But since the special day in our land - November 11 - is only 2 days plus a little bit away, “I better cool it”!

I wish you great success on November 15.

[sellpro 46]

Yes, it was a compliment and again, thank you for having an opinion and for sharing it.

[waterskirick]

I wish you wouldn't blur the results of a multi candidate (or party) election, where the winner rarely receives more that 50% of the vote, with council's responsibility to respond to the wishes of the people. A developer does not receive project approval without first showing the support of the affected community. It would not be acceptable to show that one of four design suggestions received 35% support. Council would send the developer back to the community for further input. In the same way, we hold council responsible to prove support for our name choice.

The naming issue has come down to one thing to me. The new name must have the support of the majority. Council will have to find a way for us to demonstrate that support. For instance, if there isn’t a 51% winner, we could have a run off of the two most popular names. This could be done at the provincial election this spring. We would likely even have a larger turnout then. Just an “idea”.

I would like to vote for you. I certainly will not vote for Findlater as he does not understand his role. Politics and leadership are usually quite different paths. Council and Mayor should unify and strengthen the community. It’s a balance between leading with innovative ideas and listening for support.

If you want this job, you should commit to doing the job.

[sellpro 46]

Thanks for your reply.

I am committed. I wouldn't do this is I weren't.

Your argument has merit and Ime sure that many will agree with your contention but I believe in what I believe.

I hope that you can respect that as I respect your position and if I gain your support, it will be because you believe that I have spine.

Thanks

[cpt64]

Peter, as I understand it, you're sticking to the " first past the post " concept as most of you answered on Monday night. Can we assume then that the name Westside is also being held to the same standard as the other four names? Just so I'm understanding where you're coming from....if none of the names gets 50%+1 and there are more votes for " No " in Question 1 than any of the others in Question 2, what does that mean to you?

[parachute]

Peter, I hope that when you consider cpt64’s question you will just BEGIN to realize the dog’s breakfast of municipal naming situation that Findlater and Co. have got us into.

If you eventually admit that this situation is NOT simple then perhaps you will admit that a SIMPLE minded decision at this time (i.e., before we even know how the electorate is going to vote) to accept “first past the post” for this extremely important question (our long term city name!) is the wrong thing to commit yourself to.

Before making decisions of this sort of importance you should obtain ALL the data possible.

[Urbane]

Peter, as I understand it, you're sticking to the " first past the post " concept as most of you answered on Monday night. Can we assume then that the name Westside is also being held to the same standard as the other four names? Just so I'm understanding where you're coming from....if none of the names gets 50%+1 and there are more votes for " No " in Question 1 than any of the others in Question 2, what does that mean to you?

Cpt64, weren't you in favour of the naming committee's ballot that required no majority and treated names differently? I always thought there should be a clear ballot with a majority decision in the end but that was nixed by the committee and then by council. Now I think it has to end on the 15th because if not the animosity will only be exacerbated. Both candidates for mayor and most council candidates have said they will accept the results on the 15th, and given what has transpired that is a wise course.

[parachute]

By the way, Peter, I certainly believe you “have spine” but I hope it is not so absolutely rigid that it can not bend or change position if legitimate, rational, good arguments are presented to you.

[Urbane]

Parachute, I think Peter has said that it would be a mistake to draw things out any more. All one has to do is look at this thread and see the wisdom of voting on the 15th and accepting the decision. If I had had my way we would have started earlier, come up with the top two names, and voted on those two names next Saturday. The naming committee didn't want to go that route nor did council. I think Peter will show he has spine by stick with the right decision - let's all vote on the 15th, accept the results, and move on.

[cpt64]

Peter, as I understand it, you're sticking to the " first past the post " concept as most of you answered on Monday night. Can we assume then that the name Westside is also being held to the same standard as the other four names? Just so I'm understanding where you're coming from....if none of the names gets 50%+1 and there are more votes for " No " in Question 1 than any of the others in Question 2, what does that mean to you?

Cpt64, weren't you in favour of the naming committee's ballot that required no majority and treated names differently? I always thought there should be a clear ballot with a majority decision in the end but that was nixed by the committee and then by council. Now I think it has to end on the 15th because if not the animosity will only be exacerbated. Both candidates for mayor and most council candidates have said they will accept the results on the 15th, and given what has transpired that is a wise course.

Urbane, you are absolutely correct. You keep saying the Findlater ballot will allow the people to decide, but in fact, Council will still decide for us and I don't believe the decision will be as cut and dried as you think. I can see why you prefer Findlater's ballot. First you were upset when it looked like Westbank and West Kelowna were going to be left off. Then, it was put back on, but that wasn't good enough for you and some others from Westbank. You didn't want a head to head, you wanted a ballot that would split the vote and prevent people from voting freely for a new name option as well. That's what we got from the Fab Five.

The TNC ballot was a far better solution that would have given Council a much better scope of what the entire electorate wanted. The people would have decided and any decision made by Council would have been justifiable. Funny, this was supposed to be an opinion poll. Now, it seems we have a referendum. Oh BTW, make sure you check the fine print at the bottom of your ballot when you vote.

What it comes down to is maybe you weren't interested in a new name and would have left that entire section blank. Your next door neighbour probably would have voted for Westbank against West Kelowna as well, but in the spirit of what we were trying to accomplish as a community, your neighbour might have picked one or two of the new names. And maybe one of those names that your neighbour picked might have coincided with one of my choices, and so on and so on. The Fab Five took that option away from us. That's not the people deciding. That's five people that took an option away from every single one of us.

Perhaps Westbank would have been the clear winner. But then again, maybe one of the new names would have risen to the top. And maybe it would have been too close to call between one of the existing names and a new name. Maybe a head to head would have come into play. We'll never know, will we? Instead, look at where we are now.

Some of us knew this would happen which is kind of why some of us were hoping that we could have left Westbank and West Kelowna behind us and all started from scratch..... one big, happy family. NOT!

[Urbane]

Actually, cpt64, I argued FOR a head to head. You must have missed that. I specifically asked TheNameGame to bring it up before the committee. He said he liked the idea and would, but the committee shot it down before he could even formally present it. I've said many times on here that there should be a final ballot with two names but it's too late for that now. The voting has started and most candidates for mayor and council have said they will accept the verdict. So having council MAKE the decision, as we would have had with the naming committee ballot, and having council AFFIRM the decision of the people, as we will have after the 15th, are two different things.