[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