[1:00:00] my point, we are all in this
[1:00:04] together. And yes, there were certain unfairnesses we cannot begin to overcome.
[1:00:08] There's no question about it. And I feel the frustration in having grown up in
[1:00:10] Coombs and seen all the fights for the regional district and against
[1:00:14] the regional district over the years, I'm very conscious
[1:00:17] of that. And I'd like to think that the members of this board who are
[1:00:19] here because they are counselors or the mayor of the city
[1:00:24] of Nanaimo have tried to exercise a consciousness
[1:00:28] about the frustrations that are felt. And I'll be quite
[1:00:32] candid, it's been expressed sometimes jocularly that we sometimes
[1:00:36] have the view that Lansville has
[1:00:40] complaints about the levels of taxation, but Lansville doesn't tax
[1:00:44] in the way that we do in
[1:00:49] Nanaimo, and we take a political hit
[1:00:54] for that. And that is okay. We are a large, disparate, sometimes disagreeable family,
[1:00:58] but all in all, we generally function fairly well
[1:01:02] together. So where I'm going with this ramble, I am very attached to what Councillor
[1:01:07] Brown, pardon me, Director Brown has proposed in terms of a solution in
[1:01:12] a practical way, because I think overall, having 18 or 19 voices around this table
[1:01:16] representing the various groups and the diversity that we do within
[1:01:20] the regional district, we actually generally speaking
[1:01:25] come up with some pretty good things and the historic record is that
[1:01:30] on environmental issues, whether you believe in climate change or not, is separate. I see
[1:01:36] some nods from where the expected sources, but having
[1:01:39] said that, this particular regional district
[1:01:43] has developed a significant reputation. And with the acquisition of Hamilton Marsh and
[1:01:48] others, we're demonstrating, I think, the kind of leadership that's important.
[1:01:51] So I'm the, forgive the sexist comment here,
[1:01:55] cheerleaders can be of any gender, I suppose.
[1:01:59] I'm a cheerleader for something sticking close to the status quo that tries
[1:02:03] to keep us on this path together because overall, I think we're doing pretty well.
[1:02:06] And that may set the hair on fire, not the members of
[1:02:09] this board, but some of those who come as delegations from
[1:02:14] time to time in the last year or so. But all in all, we should
[1:02:15] be pretty pleased with what we're doing and
[1:02:19] try and keep it going. Thank you. Thank you,
[1:02:23] Dr. Croak. Dr. Brown, then Dr. Thorpe. Thanks, I think Director
[1:02:27] Swain raises a good question and I appreciate that we have the opportunity to kind
[1:02:31] of discuss this more freely. So I would just sort of start my comments
[1:02:35] by saying as a former chair, a smaller board
[1:02:39] has great appeal. But also, I just also say that as I have
[1:02:43] no, I've been trying to think about this as
[1:02:47] objectively as possible because there's no circumstance in which I'll be
[1:02:51] sitting at this board come in the fall.
[1:02:55] So I do think that if, I do think if
[1:02:59] the number goes too low for Nanaimo, it would be a disservice for the board
[1:03:03] for two reasons. The first
[1:03:07] is that in order to achieve that, you have to, you know,
[1:03:11] up the population thresholds per vote.
[1:03:17] And what that will result in is like,
[1:03:21] a reduction over time for all the other areas achieving additional weighted
[1:03:27] votes through their population growth because that threshold will be easier every time for Nanaimo
[1:03:30] to hit. And then the, I think a second
[1:03:35] point to that is deviating too
[1:03:39] far from that will start to, outside of the weighted vote, take away from representation
[1:03:45] by population. But I also think there's,
[1:03:50] I think if you totaled the vote, if you went
[1:03:54] back and took a look at votes, the more
[1:03:58] Nanaimo directors there are, that's seven or eight, often their votes counter each other,
[1:04:01] five votes here, five votes
[1:04:05] there, based on the vote. Someone kind of observed the board, not in the recent
[1:04:09] term, but even before that when Nanaimo had
[1:04:14] a much reduced number, I think there was a greater
[1:04:17] temptation to vote as a block because
[1:04:21] it only takes five people and four of you
[1:04:25] might agree or there's less likely for difference in votes
[1:04:30] when there's a smaller amount of people. That would actually, I think, carry more weight
[1:04:33] at this board table than it has
[1:04:37] heccered with the seven or more recently
[1:04:42] the eight. I think if we, I think there's some
[1:04:49] temptation there from numerous grounds, but I think taken as a whole,
[1:04:53] it would actually probably be a negative, a net negative for
[1:04:57] board equity when it comes to
[1:05:01] decision making. Thank you, Dr. Brown. Dr. Thorpe, then Dr. Stanley. Thank you very much,
[1:05:06] Chair. Just a couple of thoughts on this, an interesting
[1:05:10] topic and complicated to me at least. I like Director Brown's suggestion
[1:05:14] in the 6.7 for the same
[1:05:19] reasons that Director Krog has mentioned. To me, it seems to strike a
[1:05:22] balance with fairness and trying to maintain something
[1:05:28] close to the status quo. I don't disagree with everything that
[1:05:32] Councillor or Director Salter said, and I'm not convinced that
[1:05:36] Nanaimo losing one director would be the end of the world,
[1:05:40] but I would prefer that not to happen. But I will point out, building on
[1:05:44] what Director Brown just said, when I first came
[1:05:48] to this board, Nanaimo directors were expected and were told to
[1:05:52] vote as a block and were given directions on how to vote
[1:05:56] on each topic. And that was not healthy. And there was
[1:06:00] one case where an Nanaimo director was actually
[1:06:04] removed from the RDN for not following instructions. That has
[1:06:08] changed. And now Nanaimo directors, I'm proud to say, come here and they vote independently
[1:06:12] and they vote according to their own conscience and beliefs.
[1:06:16] So I think we're all here trying to do our best for
[1:06:20] each issue and at the same time represent our
[1:06:25] jurisdictions. The other comment I'd like to make, Chair, is, I think, related to that
[1:06:29] because I'm hearing a little bit of back and forth jabber
[1:06:34] between jurisdictions around this table, which is not,
[1:06:38] I don't think productive and it's not out of line,
[1:06:41] but I'm hearing there are several options in front of us that the ministry probably
[1:06:43] would not accept because of the scalability of numbers. And I feel like they're
[1:06:48] telling us, you submit an option, but if we don't like
[1:06:52] it, then we won't accept it.
[1:06:56] So maybe the ministry should be giving us two or three options. That they
[1:07:00] think are fine, and we could choose the one that we think is best.
[1:07:02] I guess I'm feeling a little frustrated that we're being guided down
[1:07:06] this path, but with certain parameters that we're not allowed to go over. But having
[1:07:09] said all that,
[1:07:13] I think the proposal that's been put in front of us to think about
[1:07:17] at least is a fair one and a good starting point.
[1:07:22] Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Thorpe. Very good comments.
[1:07:27] I think a lot of us feel
[1:07:31] the same way. Mr. Holmes, did you have something to add? Chair McLean, that was
[1:07:34] in looking at the history that a couple of directors have brought up on this
[1:07:37] topic, we were concerned with exactly that,
[1:07:40] that the board would sit around, debate this heavily,
[1:07:44] submit its wish to cabinet through staff,
[1:07:48] and it would come back turned down. And so we started with that. We said,
[1:07:52] what are the no-fly zones? And that conversation went on over a number of
[1:07:56] months and over a number of conversations and culminated in that list that Ms.
[1:08:00] Hill put up on the board earlier on and said,
[1:08:06] these are the types of things that we want the
[1:08:10] board to consider, debate, come to some conclusions on, et cetera. Some of the
[1:08:15] things that I think are no-fly zones is a model
[1:08:19] that I think that Director Thorpe has correctly observed,
[1:08:24] something that's not scalable, they're not gonna entertain that. The representation by population is very
[1:08:27] important, but at the end of the day, right now,
[1:08:31] the current model is about to expire just by
[1:08:35] virtue of numbers, and they're saying, so they're putting these questions
[1:08:40] with these criteria in mind, how does the board wish to address this? And so
[1:08:43] I think that if the board demonstrates it's
[1:08:48] viewed those criteria, considered them, debated them,
[1:08:52] and gone through a process that considers the individual
[1:08:56] councils, has shared this with the community, has had this conversation with First
[1:09:00] Nations. Then at the end of the day,
[1:09:04] I think the staff will recommend something to
[1:09:09] cabinet that approximates what's being concluded upon by the
[1:09:14] board. Thank you, Mr. Holmes. I have Director Stanley,
[1:09:18] then Director Salt. Thanks. So lots of good comments. I think that the reduction in
[1:09:23] cost is appealing, but I'm actually gonna make a
[1:09:27] point that is in support of more City of Nanaimo directors. And that
[1:09:32] is because I do feel like that, as mentioned, as we see,
[1:09:36] there are differing opinions. And I feel like that having that number
[1:09:41] to represent the variety of different opinions that are present not
[1:09:45] only in the city of Nanaimo, but across the region actually serves a functional purpose
[1:09:48] of representation of different values and allowing us to debate
[1:09:52] those different values. And so I find that the extent to which that occurs,
[1:09:56] particularly with ones perhaps I'm more different, a great opportunity for us to make good
[1:09:59] decisions and for us to learn from one another. So I feel that there's a
[1:10:03] value in that, which is why I I
[1:10:07] do want to suggest that having more City of Nanaimo folk,
[1:10:11] there's a benefit to that. However, I guess it leads me
[1:10:14] to a question which was related to the history conversation, is how
[1:10:18] City of Nanaimo appoints their directors to this board? Is that in
[1:10:22] policy? And is the independent of the directors votes? Is that
[1:10:26] in policy at City of Nanaimo? Because I
[1:10:31] feel like that piece and how you're all functioning now, leads to great functioning at
[1:10:33] this table, but obviously you can see that it could go the other way and
[1:10:36] it could be problematic. So that is my question to City of
[1:10:40] Nanaimo, if you don't mind sharing, and I will say if it's
[1:10:44] not in policy, be great if it was, but I also agree with the 6.7,
[1:10:46] I think that's probably the best way to
[1:10:51] go. Thanks. Thank you very much, Chair, the Mayor and the seven highest vote
[1:10:54] getters. And the lowest vote getter is the alternate.
[1:10:59] A policy? If it's not written in stone, I gotta tell you, it's been written
[1:11:03] in practice so long, I can't,
[1:11:07] I'm not aware of any ear, including going back to
[1:11:11] George Anderson. So, Councillor Brown can give a firm answer maybe.
[1:11:15] Yeah, the official policy speaks
[1:11:19] to experience and voter
[1:11:24] confidence, which translates to votes. May I follow up and ask about the
[1:11:28] independence of the vote? Sorry, say that again. Can I
[1:11:32] also ask about the independence of the vote of the director's votes versus it
[1:11:36] being a Nanaimo block? We have not sat
[1:11:40] together on any occasion that I'm aware of, although there may have been some small
[1:11:44] subgroups, I wasn't part of them, that has ever considered coming
[1:11:48] here and voting as a corporate block, as Councillor Thorpe said,
[1:11:52] used to be the practice in the old days. I can tell you
[1:11:56] from experience, having heard it from her lips myself, my dear old friend Joy
[1:12:00] Leach, who went to high school with
[1:12:04] my sister, so we're giving a bit of history here, was appalled when she became
[1:12:08] the mayor of Nanaimo to discover that in fact,
[1:12:11] willy-nilly, those bloody Nanaimo directors came out here to the
[1:12:15] regional district and voted according to their conscience, and she settled that quickly, and they
[1:12:18] started voting as a corporate bloc. That practice disappeared over time.
[1:12:22] So it doesn't sound like there's a policy in
[1:12:27] any direction. Director Salter, go ahead. Thank you, Chair. And so a couple
[1:12:31] of things I want to say first. Number one, I don't want this to be
[1:12:32] us against them. I don't want this to be you and then Nanaimo or Nanaimo's,
[1:12:36] but they've got too many people and they're all, that's not what, I don't think
[1:12:40] that was the purpose of this. What I think the
[1:12:45] purpose is, I could be wrong,
[1:12:49] But what I think the purpose was is we're in trouble with the numbers.
[1:12:53] When Nanaimo, when Sna-naimoc become,
[1:12:58] if they do, become part of an Anamim voting population, you're going to be
[1:13:02] in trouble at any rate because you don't have enough directors to
[1:13:07] manage this anymore. You're going to need another
[1:13:12] alternate when you only already have one, but you won't have any alternate when
[1:13:18] we look at the numbers. And I think that's what we're doing here today.
[1:13:21] It's not, I think Nanaimo's voting a block or I think,
[1:13:24] no, I don't think that's anything of any part
[1:13:29] of this and
[1:13:34] shouldn't be any part of this conversation. I don't think today. I think
[1:13:38] it's about how do we, what's the fix here? You're gonna have, you're gonna be
[1:13:41] in a position where you're gonna have not enough numbers to manage what
[1:13:46] you're supposed to be managing here. And so when we look at this, yes,
[1:13:49] there's a savings. I like it. But there
[1:13:53] is a savings, which is if you drop down
[1:13:57] to whatever, I'm just going to throw this
[1:14:02] out to people.
[1:14:03] You drop down to directors.
[1:14:07] You now have an alternate, which you have to have, and then maybe a
[1:14:12] spare. I don't know. But at least it
[1:14:16] gets, or at least you have, if you drop down to seven, then you
[1:14:20] have an alternate and maybe an alternate alternate. Because quite often I have seen where
[1:14:23] Nanaimo has had the one alternate, but you're still missing people at
[1:14:30] the table because one alternate isn't cutting it.
[1:14:34] You need more than that because there's more of you
[1:14:38] and obviously more life things that happen. So for
[1:14:44] the rest of us for the most part, especially those of us with only one
[1:14:47] sitting here, there's only one thing happening to one person and then the alternate kind
[1:14:50] of comes in. So it's a, I think a bigger
[1:14:55] issue for Nanaimo because of your numbers. And so I think I want
[1:15:00] to go there rather than we're being outvoted or we're being whatever your
[1:15:03] blog vote, whatever it is. I don't want to talk about that stuff.
[1:15:09] I just want to talk about what is the answer then
[1:15:13] for you to have the numbers when your whole world changes because
[1:15:17] you're about to get a population
[1:15:22] increase that you never did count on until now. And so I think that's where
[1:15:24] I want to go.
[1:15:28] And the other thing I want to say is we're also
[1:15:33] looking out 15 years ahead. So if you do drop by two counselors, Tare,
[1:15:36] you know that in 15 years time, who knows what you're going
[1:15:41] to do in 15 years time as far as population goes.
[1:15:44] And then the other piece of it is, of course I like the
[1:15:49] financial part, of course I would, but that's not
[1:15:53] the reason for that we're here. And then the
[1:15:56] last piece for me is that
[1:16:01] I think for me,
[1:16:06] I don't want to make a decision today.
[1:16:11] I did talk to the chair and some others. I want time to percolate this
[1:16:15] because I saw that new table that you put up. I have not had time
[1:16:19] to look at that table. And I've heard a
[1:16:23] lot of conversation around the table that I had not considered
[1:16:27] until I heard it today. And so I would like time to, whatever we
[1:16:31] come up, whatever we decide,
[1:16:34] I'd like time to
[1:16:38] take that away and think about
[1:16:42] it and then come back like within a week or something, whatever, for us
[1:16:47] to make a final decision that we could send into the ministry
[1:16:50] and hopefully it'll be something that they will accept.
[1:16:54] I guess we all in one way or another, there's going to be a change.
[1:16:57] And then we just have to, we just have to accept that. That's it.
[1:17:01] Thank you, Director Salter. Yes, that's one thing that's guaranteed is something has
[1:17:05] to change. We, even if we make a recommendation today,
[1:17:09] it's not a final decision. So if we do
[1:17:14] get to that, great. It'll still come back to the
[1:17:19] board. If we don't, we're still
[1:17:23] going to come back to the board because we do have to do something.
[1:17:27] Thank you, Director Calhoun. Look to Director Westbrook, then Vice-Chair Malatynski. Thanks,
[1:17:31] Chair. I'm just following up on Director Salter. We need to
[1:17:36] come up with some response, but maybe not
[1:17:40] today. And I'm just curious whether the rest of the City
[1:17:44] Council de Naimo agree with Tyler's that's some point
[1:17:48] solution. I think as far as I'm concerned, not going to change anything for Falcon
[1:17:52] Beach for a very long time. And it doesn't bother
[1:17:57] me that Lance may have a third of population or,
[1:18:01] or McLean's area has a third of population and we have
[1:18:05] one vote each. That's all because we have the weighted vote to kind of
[1:18:10] work that out, so. I'm easy on
[1:18:13] this. I was disappointed that we didn't get this addressed when we had only five
[1:18:17] members from the Naimo, one from Parks and lots of rumor on the table.
[1:18:20] Because I believe that the voting strength makes that up. And I also never,
[1:18:25] and I've been around almost 30 years, I don't
[1:18:29] think the city of Nanaimo ever forced their way through
[1:18:32] because they have the 54% on the vote when it
[1:18:36] comes to a weighted vote. So I think I'm good with either way. But I
[1:18:39] think we need to wrap this up today and say, okay, we'll come
[1:18:43] back. I could talk to my fellow counselors, others could
[1:18:47] too, and just have a conversation, but we need to close
[1:18:51] it off or we're going to be going in circles. And I would
[1:18:55] like to somehow suggest that we come back and somebody can make a notice of
[1:18:57] motion. I would encourage Tyler to make a notice of motion that we
[1:19:02] can discuss at the next meeting. Thank you.
[1:19:06] Thank you, Director Westbrook. Before I go to Vice-Chairman Launson, just on the process,
[1:19:10] Ms. Hill, we're going to potentially make a recommendation today
[1:19:14] or not. Either way, it'll come back to
[1:19:18] an upcoming board meeting in the very near future,
[1:19:22] perhaps next week. And after the board makes
[1:19:28] a decision, we'll refer that to our neighboring First
[1:19:32] Nations and our resident municipalities. Is that correct? And we'll put it out to the
[1:19:35] public for their information as well. Yes, Chair, also just to let you know,
[1:19:39] given that the committee, the whole report was published,
[1:19:43] the get involved page is open. It's just high level information for the
[1:19:47] public and allowing them to know the conversation
[1:19:53] and when the upcoming board meeting and this committee, the whole
[1:19:57] meeting would be. Thank you. Okay, thank you.
[1:20:00] Vice-Chairman Lanson and then Director
[1:20:04] Rogers. Thank you, Chair. I just first wanted to say that over the last
[1:20:08] couple of years, I've had the privilege of
[1:20:12] working with most of the City of Nanaimo counselors
[1:20:16] on a collaborative basis, and it's never been my experience that
[1:20:20] they have been anything other than gracious in sharing their experience and knowledge and working
[1:20:20] collaboratively with me. And ditto for
[1:20:26] the other southern electoral areas in the city or the village
[1:20:29] of Lansville. It's been nothing but a
[1:20:33] pleasure to work with my colleagues in those areas. So I
[1:20:37] feel fortunate that that's not been.
[1:20:41] Or that that's been the case in in my term.
[1:20:45] I just want to briefly talk about the weighted to vote minimum. While representation by
[1:20:49] population, I think we can all safely assume is very important to all of us,
[1:20:52] I want to briefly talk about
[1:20:57] one of the challenges that
[1:21:02] we face as electoral area directors, where we feel
[1:21:07] the need to represent our populations, but we're also the stewards of the
[1:21:11] largest portion of the regional district by land mass, and particularly for area
[1:21:15] C, which has the the smallest population
[1:21:19] and the largest geographic landmass, we often feel the need to do more
[1:21:23] with less as far as a tax base. We're protecting watersheds and mountains and forested
[1:21:27] areas that are much larger than any of the other
[1:21:34] areas with less money and also with less voting strength.
[1:21:38] So it forces us to be collaborative oftentimes in situations where we don't necessarily- the
[1:21:40] segments were completely random. Strangely pleasant in the
[1:21:44] way the Helens gently expressed their opinions.
[1:21:48] As for which one? Thank you. Thank you, whoever that was.
[1:21:53] Is that you, Director Wood? Yeah. So I feel
[1:21:57] like we're often forced to work with our neighbors in
[1:22:01] this area, and rightly so, because we're the
[1:22:06] resources and the playground and the
[1:22:10] water for other areas. So it forces us to work with our neighbors. But if
[1:22:14] we water down that weighted strength even more, I feel like we lose
[1:22:18] that piece of stewardship to a certain extent. So my preference would be to look
[1:22:21] at a formula that maintains
[1:22:25] that to vote minimum. That being said,
[1:22:29] if director brand feels confident in moving his motion,
[1:22:33] he would have my support because I think that's
[1:22:38] the fairest way to move forward. So I look forward to
[1:22:44] that conversation. Thank you very much. I have Director Rogers, then Director Krog.
[1:22:48] Thanks, Chair. And through you, just a couple of comments that I
[1:22:52] might, with respect to, and I
[1:22:56] guess in conjunction with Director Thorpe and Director,
[1:23:01] Hm? Nino. I've been around
[1:23:04] here a while and I don't think that I've ever felt
[1:23:10] that the city of Naino has
[1:23:14] voted as a block. And I don't ever think that
[1:23:18] the directors from the Naino have voted other than with their conscience.
[1:23:23] So, but I do believe strongly right across this whole country,
[1:23:26] in our representation based
[1:23:31] on population. So looking at
[1:23:36] the number of directors that Nanaimo has, I also agree
[1:23:40] with trying to maintain the status quo and taking a look seriously at that option.
[1:23:45] But I think that we need to give this some real theory
[1:23:49] of thought. We have to make sure that
[1:23:54] our electorate have a chance to get feedback to
[1:23:58] us on this. I know every resident in the news does not look
[1:24:01] at the agendas on a daily basis or on a regular basis. They may look
[1:24:03] at it fairly frequently, but not every resident has
[1:24:08] a chance or the inclination to do that. I think
[1:24:12] this is one of the more serious things that we've done as
[1:24:16] a as
[1:24:21] a board is to review the number of directors that we have and the representation
[1:24:24] by each jurisdiction. So I wouldn't want to make a
[1:24:28] recommendation today. I would want to take this away
[1:24:32] and think about it some more. I noticed on one of
[1:24:36] the slides had an option in there with respect to a workshop
[1:24:41] type approach for it. That may not be necessary if people are all if if
[1:24:46] the majority of us are thinking
[1:24:50] about trying to maintain the status quo, we get one of the concerns, you know,
[1:24:54] different directors have at different times is with respect to
[1:24:58] when we look at the financial plan and the fact that, oh heck, what does
[1:25:00] it matter? And Nanaimo's got
[1:25:04] a weighted vote and they're going to approve whatever financial
[1:25:09] plan they want. I don't think that's quite the case. They may, on paper and
[1:25:13] on numbers, they may have that ability, but it doesn't always
[1:25:17] work out that way.
[1:25:22] So when we look at this thing here, we pay
[1:25:31] for in all the services that we have, 115 services. So each one of those
[1:25:34] services within our financial plan, we're told what the participation and what the formula
[1:25:38] is for that. We know what that is because
[1:25:42] we've set those things up. We know what the participation is and then
[1:25:46] we know whether you're paying 100% by assessment or
[1:25:51] if you're paying by population and assessment. So we know all those
[1:25:55] things and we have the flexibility to change those. And there have
[1:26:00] been some cases where that has been demonstrated. We know there's a difference between
[1:26:04] transit south and transit north. So and we're still able to work through some of
[1:26:07] those things. So I don't think it's so much the makeup of
[1:26:13] the board, because that is up to the electorate, when the electorate, when they
[1:26:17] decide who they want to have on those, representing them, either as directors individually for
[1:26:21] the electoral areas, or whether it's for counselors for Qualicum
[1:26:26] Beach, for Langford, for Parksville,
[1:26:36] and Nanaimo. Those are choices that the residents make and I wouldn't want to be
[1:26:40] in a system where we have anything but that choice.
[1:26:44] So going forward, I want some time to think about this thing. I wouldn't want
[1:26:47] to have us see us just next Tuesday make a
[1:26:51] recommendation to the province and this is
[1:26:55] what we want. But I appreciate that we don't want to leave it.
[1:26:59] For too long a time.
[1:27:03] I think we do have lots of flexibility
[1:27:07] and we have a chance
[1:27:12] to talk about things
[1:27:16] as individuals and amongst ourselves. But I don't
[1:27:20] think that I've ever felt that the Nanaimo Board or members of the Nanaimo Board
[1:27:24] have got together and said, okay, we're going to this is how
[1:27:28] we're going to vote and this is how
[1:27:32] we have to vote. I've worked with,
[1:27:37] as a school trustee, I've worked with Joy
[1:27:41] Leach, who Leonard referenced.
[1:27:46] And there may have been a different approach at that school
[1:27:50] district when Joy was chair of that. But that's bygone history, I think.
[1:27:54] And I haven't felt that we've been going through
[1:27:58] that for the last number of years.
[1:28:02] So I'll just leave it at that,
[1:28:06] but I would like some time to be able to think about this and hope
[1:28:11] that we have a chance to not rush into this
[1:28:15] decision, because it does have an impact on the makeup of the
[1:28:19] board. And it's something that we
[1:28:23] want to do before October when we come up
[1:28:28] for the local elections this fall. Thank you. Thank you,
[1:28:31] Director Rogers. Director Krog, then Director Westbroek. Thank you very much,
[1:28:34] Chair. And I just want to be clear through
[1:28:39] you to Director Salter, I think she expressed some concern about the addition
[1:28:44] of the Sinixt territories into the City of Nanaimo in terms
[1:28:48] of voting. And I'm sure the consultant will
[1:28:52] correct me if I'm wrong, but we're talking about an addition of less than
[1:28:57] 800 voters, and if they vote with the same awful turnout as everybody else who's
[1:29:01] already in the city of the now, that means about 200 votes.
[1:29:05] So it's not going to be a substantive change. To come back to,
[1:29:10] though, to what Director Rogers, Director Salter, and others have said,
[1:29:14] notwithstanding it is a cow meeting and it's not the final decision, I'm quite happy
[1:29:16] to see consideration of
[1:29:20] this delayed without considering a motion. I must say
[1:29:24] my personal view is at this stage,
[1:29:29] I would happily support what Councillor Brown has proposed for
[1:29:33] all the reasons that many have articulated one way or another today. But in deference
[1:29:37] to the electoral area directors, if there is even How shall I say,
[1:29:41] and there appears to be a reasonable minority of them who would prefer some time
[1:29:44] to consider this, then I think it is worth doing
[1:29:48] that and also giving them a time to consult their constituents. As I've pointed
[1:29:52] out many times, virtually no one comes to me ever as a regional director
[1:29:57] with a regional district of Nanaimo issue. They, on the other hand,
[1:30:01] are dressed in the coffee shops and the
[1:30:05] gas stations and the barbershops shops just
[1:30:09] like I am on city issues, but they're addressed on already
[1:30:13] an issue. So for what it's worth, I say give them time.
[1:30:18] Thank you, director Krog, director Westbrook. Thank you, chair. After being, I thought
[1:30:22] I was convinced that and I would never vote as a block, but then director
[1:30:25] sorb said that when he got in, he was told to vote as a block.
[1:30:28] And maybe if I was naive, I thought they wouldn't
[1:30:33] do that. But anyway, I would say if it's appropriate,
[1:30:36] we could make a motion to defer this to the next board meeting and perhaps
[1:30:39] someone could, as I suggested, I like Tyler Brown's or Director Brown's
[1:30:45] suggestion as well with the decimal point
[1:30:50] in it. And hopefully we can then make a decision because we've got
[1:30:55] to make a decision at some point. And to me, it's not a big deal.
[1:30:58] I think the voting strength is what makes the difference. And we need to move
[1:31:01] forward. So I don't really think there's much more to be said. I think we
[1:31:02] had a good discussion. So if it's appropriate, Chair, I would move
[1:31:06] that we defer this to the next board
[1:31:10] meeting. I'm not sure that's
[1:31:14] necessary. I will be on a board meeting agenda, but Mr. Holmes, you did just
[1:31:18] have your hand up. Chair McLean, as you and I talked about
[1:31:22] earlier on, our intention is to bring it to the March 10th board meeting just
[1:31:25] as a matter of course. To keep
[1:31:29] the conversation going until the board comes to some conclusion. So that'll happen
[1:31:33] in any event. Well, in that case, I move that we adjourn.
[1:31:37] Well, I see Director O'Brien as his hand up, so I'll go to him.
[1:31:39] Thank you, though. Thank you, Chair. And in consideration of the fact we are a
[1:31:42] community as a whole, is it possible sometimes,
[1:31:46] and I totally understand the fact that
[1:31:50] some directors want to, take a step back and consider what we've heard today.
[1:31:53] And that's great and we'd like to do that. But I've
[1:31:58] also heard from a number of
[1:32:02] directors here today that they're looking for a status quo
[1:32:06] and a lot, I would suspect, supporting of Director Brown,
[1:32:09] so 6.7, myself included. But at the same time,
[1:32:14] I would find it helpful if I was to to take a moment
[1:32:18] to reconsider. If I could know of those people that aren't convinced that 6.7 is
[1:32:22] just a go-to that if they could advise, like they're looking
[1:32:26] for, we were presented for so many options. If we could, is it possible,
[1:32:29] since we're in Cal to actually get a consensus of what
[1:32:33] some of the other directors are thinking
[1:32:40] that they, they're favoring this, but we want to we
[1:32:45] want to think about it more. And then at that time that we can go
[1:32:45] back to our packages that we've been given,
[1:32:49] say, okay, well, what does option 3A look like? If this person thinks that it's
[1:32:53] a good thing, then I want to consider that. Maybe I'm missing something here.
[1:32:57] But is there any way we can come to some consensus of what the 19
[1:33:00] members are thinking right at this time? Chair, I'm just trying
[1:33:04] to make sure I consider all opinions and the respect
[1:33:10] respectfully make a decision? Yes, thank you, Director O'Brien. I do hear a lot of
[1:33:14] agreement, but there's some hesitation on making a decision.
[1:33:18] So I still have other people who would like to speak,
[1:33:22] and I would like to
[1:33:28] hear from them. That's the whole point of this forum
[1:33:32] today is just to have a good dialogue
[1:33:36] and discussion, ask questions, and and not
[1:33:40] necessarily formulate a recommendation. So I will go to
[1:33:47] Director Craig, then Director Thorpe. Thank you.
[1:33:50] And I put those numbers into the handy dandy
[1:33:55] spreadsheet and it looks pretty good to me. Very close to status quo. Thinking of
[1:33:59] status quo, looking at the other options as 1B is no longer viable
[1:34:03] when there's changes to B, with the
[1:34:07] 7 divisor also has a board size of 19.
[1:34:10] So I do think that
[1:34:14] the solution that was offered with the 6.7 actually ends up with a
[1:34:19] more similar composition and voting strength to what we have now,
[1:34:22] but 2B also would attain if
[1:34:26] the board wants to maintain its current composition would
[1:34:30] also attain that. So I know one of the
[1:34:35] suggestions is that we could even potentially identify one or more, but I just throw
[1:34:38] that out there for a closer look if people were interested.
[1:34:42] But I do think that the 6.7 looks like a
[1:34:46] good solution. Thank you, Director Craig. I think it
[1:34:50] would be best if we can settle on one option to present to the ministry.
[1:34:54] That would be the most effective. With that being
[1:34:58] said, I have Director Thorpe, then Director Brown, then Director Geselbracht. Thank you very much,
[1:35:03] Chair, very quickly, because I'm just going backwards for a
[1:35:08] little bit. I did want to respond briefly to Director Westbrook,
[1:35:15] whose expertise and experience I
[1:35:19] greatly admire. During the 1914-1918 term, I'm not casting
[1:35:24] aspersions on any four former mayor of Nanaimo who
[1:35:28] was in a very difficult position in those days. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Not going
[1:35:32] back that far. Yeah, I'm doing pretty well for my age. We had a
[1:35:36] city manager, I will tell you this, that delegated
[1:35:41] a staff person to review the
[1:35:46] RDN agenda prior to each meeting and then give a briefing
[1:35:50] to to Nanaimo delegates as to
[1:35:54] how they should vote. So I am not again criticizing and I
[1:35:58] passed mayor, the blame if you wish to put blame lies elsewhere,
[1:36:01] but that practice no longer occurs, I'm very pleased
[1:36:06] to say. Thanks chair for indulging
[1:36:10] me. No problem, thank you Director Thorpe. Director Brown and
[1:36:14] then Dr. Gesselbracht. I'm happy to defer to Director Geselbracht, I think,
[1:36:19] is the first time speaker, so. Certainly. Okay.
[1:36:22] Director Geselbracht. Great. Thanks. And I appreciate all the conversation. And thank
[1:36:26] you to Director Craig for putting that, all those numbers into the spreadsheet.
[1:36:30] That was impressive. But it did
[1:36:33] lay it out clearly. Yeah, I I I was
[1:36:38] looking at, um, 1B and 2B, um, the ones
[1:36:42] that drop, uh, the city down to. Seven.
[1:36:46] And I think Parksville gets dropped down to
[1:36:50] one. And then they're scalable to 20 41. And then
[1:36:54] with the Advent of being able to look at using 6.7
[1:36:59] and kind of thread the needle in there and which allows Parksville to, I think,
[1:37:03] keep a director and still scalable, I think that option threads the needle best and
[1:37:06] it sort of allows for us
[1:37:10] to be scalable and address the population growth while maintaining close
[1:37:15] enough to status quo, which I believe, you know, we've been quite functional as
[1:37:19] a board with the number of directors that we do have.
[1:37:23] And so we don't have to mess around too much with
[1:37:28] that. So I'm in full support of going ahead
[1:37:32] with Director Brown's suggestion of the 6.7% increase.
[1:37:36] Sort of number juggling there that will allow us to address the population
[1:37:41] issue and scale. So, you know, I'm happy to have that go forward as a
[1:37:46] recommendation. Now, it seems that there seems to be quite broad consensus on that,
[1:37:48] but, you know, if there's no time
[1:37:52] urgency to slow things down a little bit, but I get a sense that
[1:37:57] most people are on board with going ahead with that. Thank you.
[1:38:01] Thank you, Director Gesselbracht. I have
[1:38:06] Director Brown, then Director Craig, then Director Manley. Chair,
[1:38:09] just a question through the staff. I can appreciate, I really appreciate wanting
[1:38:13] to take time with this, especially when you have to go out to 2041 trying
[1:38:16] to find a solution and the nature of the
[1:38:21] topic. I 100% agree with Director Rogers, probably one of the more,
[1:38:25] might not seem like it, but one of the most important decisions we're
[1:38:30] making. There's been a lot of talk of the six-point divisor, but there's also,
[1:38:33] I think, some other details in there with respect to
[1:38:37] the unit, the amount of units per vote. And I'm just wondering if we are
[1:38:39] to revisit it at the board meeting, is it possible
[1:38:43] just to have that spelled out a little bit more so the board's
[1:38:48] kind of got in front
[1:38:52] of him and we know exactly what we're talking about? I think maybe it would
[1:38:54] be helpful to put it up now. And Ms. Hill, I think we can include
[1:38:57] that in the in a word
[1:39:01] agenda package. Great. Thank you. Thank you.
[1:39:04] Were you asking for it to be put up on the screen
[1:39:09] now, Chair? Yes, Ms. Homer, if you can do that for
[1:39:14] us, that would be great. Thank you. Yes. Can you
[1:39:18] see that okay? Yes, we can.
[1:39:22] Perfect. And I'll go to Dr. Craig, you're good? Okay,
[1:39:25] that was a holdover. Director Manley. Thanks.
[1:39:28] Yeah, I was just going to say that I think Director Brown's solution
[1:39:32] here works, but I'm also happy to defer this so that
[1:39:36] we don't make a decision today necessarily,
[1:39:39] but that we all walk away with this idea and then people
[1:39:43] can mull it over on their own and we can come back and make a
[1:39:46] solid decision at the next board meeting. Thanks. Thank you, Director Manley. Director Gesselbracht,
[1:39:50] is that a holdover on your hand? Yeah, okay.
[1:39:54] Director Stanley, go ahead. Thanks. Sorry, I just wanted to clarify if these numbers included
[1:39:57] the expected changes as a result of the boundary changes
[1:40:02] or not,
[1:40:06] and if they don't,
[1:40:11] Could we get that at some point in
[1:40:16] time? Just because I think that's what I'm looking
[1:40:21] for. Okay, because I'm pretty, I think that's likely
[1:40:25] to happen. So I think this, what's up now is the
[1:40:29] likely outcome. It seems likely, but you know, nothing's guaranteed. And I think
[1:40:32] we can get both of these scenarios on the report. Yes. Okay. Thank you,
[1:40:36] Michelle. Any other questions or
[1:40:41] discussion? Well, I'm not seeing
[1:40:45] any and I don't see any new hands popping up on Zoom. So I think-
[1:40:50] Motion to adjourn. Okay. That's a motion to adjourn by Director Westbrook and seconded
[1:40:54] by Director Wood. Is there other
[1:40:59] business? I think there's a- New
[1:41:03] business, but I'm not aware
[1:41:08] of any. There's a series of motions under report.
[1:41:11] Yeah, those are recommendations that we could bring to the board,
[1:41:16] but this, as mentioned before, this is going to come back to the
[1:41:21] board anyway. So it sounded like directors would like some time with
[1:41:26] that. And so I'm happy that we can adjourn
[1:41:31] today and that we'll just be coming
[1:41:37] back to the board for further consideration and decision at that point.
[1:41:41] Because anything we do today will come back to the board anyway
[1:41:45] for a final decision. So the motion to adjourn was moved by Director Westbrook and
[1:41:50] seconded by Director Wood. Any discussion on the motion to adjourn? Seeing none, I'll call
[1:41:53] the question and all those in favor. And any
[1:42:00] opposed? I see none opposed.
[1:42:03] Well, thank you everyone. That was a good discussion and lots of
[1:42:08] good questions. And I'll look forward to us
[1:42:13] coming to a
[1:42:17] conclusion at our next board meeting. Thanks,