Vision's anti-democratic behaviour bound to backfire

Post by Daniel Fontaine in



Once upon a time, there was a party known as Vision Vancouver. It fought an election campaign on the virtues of openness and transparency. It made a commitment to ensuring that City Hall became a beacon for democratic principles.

All that was thrown out the window yesterday when NPA Councillor Suzanne Anton tried to introduce a motion to shed some light on two separate untendered $30,000 PR contracts awarded to a Vision Vancouver donor.

Vision was so afraid of an open and democratic debate, that not a single member of their caucus seconded Anton's motion, which meant it effectively died on the order paper.

This type of anti-democratic behaviour is simply going to backfire on a political party that purports to having exclusive rights on virtue at City Hall.

I'm pretty confident if the shoe were on the other foot, Vision would be squealing like stuck pigs that the NPA were shutting down 'the voice of the people'. The blogs would be stacked with commentary and posts about how evil they were for silencing the lone Vision Councillor.

So where are these same folks today? Where are all the bloggers asking for more democracy at City Hall? Where are all the posts calling upon Vision to do the right thing? Don't hold your breath. Rather, what you will likely find are folks who will come up with yet another excuse for what can only be deemed inexcusable behaviour.

Anticipate the blogosphere chatter to go something like this. Anton's party was defeated, so it doesn't have a right to have motions debated. Or...her motion was frivolous, so Vision did the right thing by not allowing it to be debated. And so on...and so on.

It would have been very easy for someone in Vision to simply second the motion, then vote it down. It would have cost them nothing, and it would have prevented Anton from having a platform to call vision anti-democratic.

I'm not sure who is advising the Mayor and his caucus, but this type of pettiness from a government with a massive majority will come back to haunt them in the next civic election. It's only been 90 days, but already the public is beginning to see a side of Vision that's not as rosy as some would like you to believe.


I was wondering why a COPEster didn't second Anton's motion Tuesday. After all, COPE has been telling us they are a different party then Vision, and Tuesday was their chance to show us taxpayers that they mean what they say. But I guess boss Meggs and banker Bellum warned them not to anything or no money for pet their projects which will be coming soon.

It is not surprising that the motion died. I suspect all were willing to look the other way on an issue that occurred early in Vision Vancouver's governance of City Hall. I think they have been given 1 get out jail free card.

I suspect the "powers that be" were not at all impressed with what went on. To execute 2 contracts without going to Council in such short succession (I believe they were done 6 weeks apart) knowing full well the enormity of what was ahead of them in December is likely poor management decision making at a less senior level, i.e. by communications, that was then mopped up by more senior managers willing to see there was no alternative as the work was done.

Yes, this type of thing goes on, however, the contracts are done usually over a period of a year or so with some sort of "wait and see" provision. These were done almost simultaneously which I think indicates some seriously poor judgement or gross inexperience.

You have to wonder, who is building the bigger greenhouse problem? Is it global warming or the enormous glass house Vision has built for itself at City Hall while it cast so many stones in the direction of the previous administration.

Don't you realize there are two standards for Vancouver Mayors? One for paraplegics in wheelchairs (hate) and one for millionaire juice boys who want to be Premiere (love).

Check out!

Paid Advertisement

Paid Advertisement