[2:42] Hello everybody. Um, we are now on to item

[2:47] uh, four, uh, two. The actual, uh, youth council,

[2:52] um, item will be deferred to a future, uh,

[2:55] to future meeting. Uh, so we're going to move on to the

[2:59] Squamish Community Forest Corporation. Um, and the, um,

[3:06] this one is very, uh, is very, uh, simple in in in my mind. Uh, so I'll

[3:12] try to explain it to, uh, Council. Be the judge of if it's as

[3:16] simple as it, um, as it appears. So, uh, just to

[3:21] briefly recap, Squamish Community Forest is is our first ever joint venture with

[3:26] the Squamish Nation, uh, and is is governed, um, by a board of directors.

[3:33] Um, the,

[3:36] over time those, uh, appointments, um, uh,

[3:41] have are made by the, um, the Squamish Nation as they, through their process

[3:45] and as they see fit, have are made through this body. Uh, and currently

[3:50] Councillor Greenlaw and I, uh, are the representatives to this

[3:54] body. Um,

[3:56] it's when I look at other,

[4:00] um, other bodies that we

[4:03] are responsible for appointing people to,

[4:07] um, we solicit recommendations from that those bodies. Say, library board's a

[4:13] great example. So, library board puts forward does the

[4:17] looks at their their needs and uh, for board members solicits reviews

[4:23] and puts forward recommendations to council

[4:27] to to endorse. And, um, a couple things here. So, one, I would like

[4:34] because this is a new, uh, entity, we haven't had that that

[4:38] process. It has been exclusively council members.

[4:41] The the

[4:44] appointments from the nation side at this point are 100% not elected

[4:49] officials. So, and I think that for we've

[4:55] also for arms length purposes and so on, um,

[4:59] we have three seats and it's my, uh, recommendation

[5:04] that we, um, request,

[5:08] uh, the community forest to, um, solicit, uh, applications for board

[5:17] members that meet their needs and bring them forward as suggestions to as

[5:22] recommendations to council when those appointments happen at the start of next

[5:26] term, uh, leaving one seat for an elected official.

[5:30] So, it's um, for me this is, uh, we're moving from a

[5:33] sort of foundational time where those seats are exclusive have been

[5:36] exclusively for, um, elected officials and getting the

[5:39] foundational, um, systems up and running and, um,

[5:45] and then it should really run with a maximum I

[5:50] think of one elected official that is still appointed by

[5:54] council. So, today I'd be looking for I'll turn into a motion, but just why

[6:01] we're talking about this is that to do that

[6:05] to be some policy development and then executing the recruitment and

[6:10] consideration of what those recommendations would be to

[6:14] bring forward to council for in time for swearing in, which is when

[6:19] all the new appointments would would take place. So,

[6:25] that's the the concept and

[6:29] um there in the past have been big lag

[6:31] times with new councils and appointments and

[6:35] it really impacts the the operations. So, I want to make sure that we're sort

[6:39] of setting this organization up as best we can to um

[6:43] to move. So, that would be that's the essence recommendation. I'll I can turn

[6:47] that into a motion, but I'd I'd um um

[6:52] welcome any any questions on on this um

[6:57] in advance of that. And there is a future touch point which we'll have in

[7:00] September um that has some we've done a few

[7:04] administrative things as this this body of like executing some legal documents

[7:08] and and so on. There's uh an element of that

[7:10] uh on the horizon as well, but I this one I wanted to make sure we had as much

[7:13] room as possible if we were to give this direction to

[7:18] uh that board. So, that's the CliffsNotes.

[7:23] Um any

[7:26] uh Can I answer any any any questions um on

[7:31] this or yeah, Councillor Pennycook, we can get started.

[7:33] » So, is this a request of the board or direction to our appointed members of

[7:39] the board to bring forward something or or what is the specific

[7:43] » So it would be um it would be I think it at this point it

[7:47] would be that we write a It's a bit of an odd one as I'm the

[7:51] chair of the board. So it's kind of six of one half dozen the other. The board

[7:55] sees this as a way to um this could be a way to make sure that the we have the

[8:00] appropriate skill sets around around the the table and that we get um

[8:06] and is is one piece. I think that as a council uh the best the best practices

[8:14] that is like a maximum of one and uh some would even argue that not have it

[8:19] keeping elected officials away from these these things is the best is the

[8:22] best course of action um as they are very community um based.

[8:27] So I wanted to set um so it's it's it's either it's either or and um but I do

[8:35] think that having um uh

[8:39] getting down to that one elected official and having

[8:41] two uh two others uh appointed to our that's

[8:46] our three seats that we have on that uh is um

[8:50] is appropriate. So that's what we're trying to get that's what I'm trying to

[8:52] get at. >> Sorry for my lack of uh are we then

[8:57] changing our District of Squamish appointment policy

[9:01] or we asking or directing the Community Forest Board to do

[9:07] something? >> We're asking the Community Forest Board

[9:10] to to uh bring forward recommendations for council consideration. So our legal

[9:16] the founding documents of all this say that the members are appointed by

[9:19] council but doesn't speak to who those members are. So we in any of our other

[9:25] groups where we have seats we don't recruit like the housing society for

[9:30] instance. We appoint one member but the housing society does the rest. The the

[9:35] the board similarly we appoint one member uh or we appoint one elected

[9:40] official, but we actually appoint the board in that case. These things go

[9:43] together in different in different ways. And I've never seen None of these do we

[9:49] we as a council go to community and solicit applications for and so on.

[9:52] That's usually done to the by the external and other They look

[9:57] after the appointments. In this case, they'd be making a recommendation more

[10:00] like the library board for council consideration. A council could take it

[10:03] or leave it at that point. That's going to be a decision for the next council,

[10:07] but Yeah, go ahead.

[10:11] » Um

[10:14] So, the board is made up of You said half Squamish Nation, half District of

[10:19] Squamish. And now

[10:23] you're proposing that the board put forward recommendations

[10:30] for the District of Squamish component. So, the Squamish Nation

[10:36] is also making recommendations on the District of Squamish

[10:40] components of the board.

[10:45] » Yes. Now,

[10:48] the reason I thought I'd start with the uh the

[10:50] short version of the answer. I'll go back a bit further.

[10:53] Um I think that um because this is the first um

[10:59] joint uh um

[11:02] first partnership between the two organizations, uh the nation has um

[11:08] their own uh

[11:10] process for these for these appointments, and I see them

[11:14] I see these two processes um uh

[11:19] needing to sort of would benefit from alignment over time.

[11:23] Um but right now we have we don't really have a process for the appointments,

[11:27] particularly external appointments to people that aren't council members to to

[11:33] this body. So, I think having the the body come up with a recruitment

[11:40] policy and figure out their needs and and um put forward recommendations to to

[11:46] council. The decision still lies with with council, but it's regardless of

[11:50] who's appointed

[11:53] then uh to the regardless of who the board is,

[11:58] um it's it's the board has um some additional uh capacity and knows

[12:04] their needs and uh and and so on. Um so, that's that's sort of the the

[12:10] thought process there, but there is that piece where yes, folks um appointed by

[12:15] the Squamish Nation can uh have input into the the

[12:21] the future appoint- appointees.

[12:25] Potentially. I don't know if that's a I think that's a neutral thing at this

[12:29] point, but you can have a positive or negative to that.

[12:35] » What's the fundamental purpose for having District of Squamish and Squamish

[12:40] Nation have appointees? Like individual appointees on the

[12:46] committee. So, I'm I I can imagine a

[12:50] a balancing of perspectives. Um

[12:54] and are we losing like the nation doesn't have a responsibility

[13:00] to find people who will represent the District of Squamish and the District of

[13:05] Squamish interests. So,

[13:09] how do those interests get community like

[13:13] » Yeah, I know. It's a it's an interesting um

[13:16] it it's an interesting piece and I think

[13:19] that as we go through um sort of an evolution of all of our

[13:26] processes, there'll the lessons learned. I think that the safe when it comes

[13:31] right down to it both partners have the ability to

[13:34] appoint equal members, three and three.

[13:39] Um who they are is up to the individ- individuals. We're just at the ask would

[13:44] be that um they would put forward some some recommendations for council to to

[13:50] take her or leave and that board does have

[13:54] some capacity to do that work that I don't see council

[14:00] doing in other cases and so it feels appropriate to me that they would do

[14:04] that. Now, perhaps over time, like I said, their

[14:08] their process can align these two processes can align, but right now they

[14:13] have an internal process that they do. I don't know, I can't speak to that.

[14:18] Um and then we don't really have a process

[14:22] except for council appointments that happen

[14:25] you know, annual- annually and it's time to have

[14:31] members of the community contribute to that to that board and to have um

[14:38] right now we're running with two appointments from the

[14:41] from us as myself and counselor counselor Greenlaw and

[14:45] um so one less elected official and two members from community

[14:49] if is what I think would be would be best and I think the best

[14:53] mechanism to do that is to ask the community forest board to bring forth

[14:56] some recommendations. I understand the duplication sort of

[15:00] piece with the nation appoint- uh appointees, but um

[15:05] it's not a it's very much a

[15:09] the board is rule- is um governed by um uh um consensus and it's been a very

[15:16] collaborative consensus space. It's not a really a versus um

[15:21] piece that way. So, but I That's why I I feel some comfort in in

[15:27] that. >> Right. I and I'm not in any way implying

[15:30] that it is a a conflict or I'm imagining a process

[15:36] our policies and our processes should protect everybody in the event

[15:42] that individuals do get into those positions who do want to take advantage.

[15:46] And so, uh if that does occur, I want to make

[15:49] like the the construction of

[15:52] half nation and half Squamish that must have been intentional.

[15:57] Um and so, I'm I'm concerned that

[16:01] handing over recommendations to the board itself

[16:05] unless that's done equally

[16:08] with the nation and the district that we're creating an asymmetry where

[16:13] an asymmetry doesn't need to exist. >> I think we're on the path to

[16:19] alignment, but I'll recognize asymmetry um at the at this point. Um

[16:26] so, I I tend to to

[16:31] agree those seats are always the language is appointed by.

[16:36] So, I could see a scenario where a qualified

[16:41] candidate is a Squamish Nation member, but is also

[16:45] votes in our local elections, a member of our community, may very well be the

[16:49] best candidate for one of the seats appointed by the District of Squamish.

[16:52] So, um I

[16:56] I get that it's that it's uh unprecedented, but we're sort of

[17:00] leading in this in this area, and I think we're going to find some spaces

[17:04] that are just have a little bit of um uh take a bit of um

[17:10] to wrap our mind our our collective minds around as we as we do that, but

[17:14] the um ultimately the control there is that

[17:18] council will have the makes the appointment. So, we're not

[17:23] handing over any any control. We're asking really for anything for asking

[17:27] for anything, it's a it's some capacity help to

[17:31] to do recruitment that will meet the needs of the of the board and bring

[17:35] forward some some recommendations um

[17:39] to uh to council.

[17:46] » Councilor Bingle. >> So, if I can summarize or maybe just

[17:50] restate to make sure I understand, the proposal is that going forward,

[17:55] if all this is supported, um

[17:59] that Squamish Nation would retain three appointments, District of Squamish would

[18:04] retain three appointments. The District of Squamish at this point

[18:07] is asking the the uh Community Forest Board to provide

[18:12] recommendations for our three appointments. We may or may not agree to

[18:17] those and may appoint someone else or not, but we've just asked for that

[18:21] assistance. The Squamish Nation may choose sooner or later to follow a

[18:27] similar process. Um, so the only change here, the only new thing

[18:33] is is um we are asking for the board to give council

[18:40] some recommendations again, which we are not compelled to

[18:45] follow through on. And then, I think part of what you said is our practice

[18:48] has been to appoint two councilors sort of almost separate from this. We may

[18:52] decide to not appoint two councilors, but again, our appointments that that's

[18:57] at our discretion as a council. >> Yeah, I generally agree with that. I

[19:03] think that um uh

[19:08] Yeah, I I think that the how the board interacts with

[19:13] the processes of both of its partners being the the district and the nation.

[19:18] Um you know, will be a little bit different

[19:21] to meet the requirements of each of each group. And if we take this step, um

[19:28] perhaps there can be a more you know, that to me this is a the first

[19:31] step into like that alignment. Maybe it's not the same process. Maybe for

[19:34] very good reasons there's another process of like, "Hey,

[19:38] identify your needs and we'll find you some folks." So, maybe that's the way

[19:41] the board can interact with the nation process.

[19:43] Um but um I think this is a is an important um

[19:50] important step and also um uh

[19:55] most most uh community forests have uh one or less elected officials and are

[20:02] built under the same structure that we're on on the board.

[20:06] So, that's that's um but that piece in and of

[20:09] itself, I think is a is um that's a bigger a bigger

[20:14] discussion if we want if I I'm not recommending that we step away from

[20:17] having elected official on the board. That'll be a discussion for as this uh

[20:22] entity has some more um uh

[20:27] more more more time to to mature and uh and it and evolve.

[20:33] But I think that um I know that we don't have the capa- I I

[20:37] haven't seen the capacity nor do I expect the capacity to emerge between

[20:40] here and uh the need to appoint some more board members

[20:44] uh to recruit them um uh effectively to meet the the board's

[20:50] the board's needs or the this entity's needs through the board.

[20:54] I'm going to go to Councillor Greenlaw.

[20:58] » Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment. Like my understanding of this is um

[21:04] this is to bring the district more into alignment with what the Squamish Nation

[21:09] is currently practicing, but also anybody who comes to the board has to be

[21:13] approved by the board. So, it's not

[21:16] » By council. By council.

[21:21] » Anybody who comes to Yeah. Yeah.

[21:26] » Yeah. So, my motion would be that the

[21:31] that council authorize the mayor to write a letter to the community forest

[21:37] inviting them to bring forward two recommendations for

[21:42] board seats for appointment

[21:45] in Q4.

[21:49] Second by Council by Council French. Do you have Do you have a question?

[21:52] » Well, possibly a friendly amendment would we say at least two or is it two?

[21:56] » Two.

[21:59] Two. So, I think I've spoken on this uh uh enough but I do think this is an

[22:04] important step. Um um forward and with with good governance

[22:10] uh of of the um of the community forest and working

[22:14] in a good way with um with the Squamish Nation. I think this

[22:17] is um a step towards having this entity really

[22:20] stand on its own properly on its own on its own two feet and um I know we have a

[22:26] lot of expertise in the community that we would benefit from uh harnessing uh

[22:30] to ensure the success of this important endeavor with our friends at the

[22:34] Squamish Nation. Um Council French.

[22:38] » Sorry, I I I just want to make sure I really understand this two number. I

[22:42] understand that we are thinking a point one elected going forward and

[22:47] two as recommended, but we do not or we would not want to have a a sort of four

[22:54] people recommended as all acceptable and we will pick only we will only pick two,

[22:59] but like or do we say no, you shall not give us more than two recommendations

[23:04] and we are going to pick only those two that you

[23:08] » Um, in other cases, um

[23:11] uh, you know, we've seen more than just the

[23:13] rec- the two that are recommended. Um, and this is a new process, so we'll have

[23:17] to we'll have to see, but I the number

[23:21] available is the total number available is three seats and uh, I'd like to see

[23:25] two recommendations and the other one stays open for

[23:29] whoever the council of the day sees fit to to

[23:32] to appoint as elected official. And I also want to recognize that

[23:37] the next council might not accept these recommendations from the community

[23:41] forest, in which case they can those are we're not

[23:46] committing the council to any particular path, but I think they'd be ill-advised

[23:50] to not, um consider these recommendations that

[23:53] should come from this process.

[23:56] Any other comments? Um seeing none, I'll call the question.

[24:02] All in favor? Any opposed?

[24:05] Was that a Was that a favor hand or a comment hand, Counselor Greenlaw?

[24:09] » Favor hand. Favor hand. >> Nice. Well done. Um

[24:13] motion carries unanimously. Thank you. Um, and just as a a foreshadow, there'll

[24:17] be some um uh, in early September, there'll be um

[24:22] uh, another item on the on the Genoa and

[24:25] Folsom um, sort of update from the community forest on operations uh, so

[24:29] far and um, hopefully strategic plan will be ready

[24:32] to share at that point and and so on. Um, so work is underway.

[24:37] That's Thank you for um, for this. Um Counselor Hamilton, can I

[24:43] help you? >> Motion to terminate this meeting.

[24:46] » I'm going to second that, and but we're all going to get two points because it's

[24:49] been an epic. So, uh, all in favor? Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank Thank

[24:55] much, everybody.

[24:58] » It's a new record. 4 and 1/2 hours over.

[25:05] » Don't tempt me. And if you think of it as a multiplier,

[25:09] I hope that's the

Special Business Meeting - 10 Aug 2026

Transcript