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

[2:45] item

[2:47] uh, four,

[2:49] uh, two. The actual, uh, youth council,

[2:52] um,

[2:53] item will be deferred to a future, uh,

[2:55] to future meeting.

[2:57] Uh, so we're going to move on to the

[2:59] Squamish Community Forest Corporation.

[3:01] Um, and the, um,

[3:06] this one is very, uh, is very,

[3:09] uh, simple in in in my mind. Uh, so I'll

[3:12] try to explain it to, uh,

[3:14] Council. Be the judge of if it's as

[3:16] simple as it,

[3:17] um, as it appears. So, uh, just to

[3:21] briefly recap, Squamish Community Forest

[3:23] is is our first ever joint venture with

[3:26] the Squamish Nation, uh, and is is

[3:29] governed, um, by a board of directors.

[3:33] Um,

[3:34] the,

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

[3:40] uh,

[3:41] have are made by the, um, the Squamish

[3:43] Nation as they, through their process

[3:45] and as they see fit, have are made

[3:47] through this body. Uh, and currently

[3:50] Councillor Greenlaw and I,

[3:53] uh, are the representatives to this

[3:54] body.

[3:55] Um,

[3:56] it's

[3:58] when I look at other,

[4:00] um,

[4:01] other bodies that we

[4:03] are responsible for appointing people

[4:06] to,

[4:07] um, we solicit recommendations from that

[4:11] those bodies. Say, library board's a

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

[4:15] forward does the

[4:17] looks at their their needs and

[4:20] uh, for board members solicits reviews

[4:23] and

[4:24] puts forward recommendations to council

[4:27] to to endorse. And, um, a couple things

[4:31] here. So, one, I would like

[4:34] because this is a new,

[4:36] uh, entity, we haven't had that that

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

[4:40] members.

[4:41] The

[4:43] the

[4:44] appointments from the nation side at

[4:47] this point are 100% not elected

[4:49] officials.

[4:50] So, and I think that for we've

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

[4:58] um,

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

[5:02] recommendation

[5:04] that we, um,

[5:07] request,

[5:08] uh, the community forest to, um,

[5:14] solicit, uh, applications for board

[5:17] members that meet their needs and

[5:19] bring them forward as suggestions to as

[5:22] recommendations to council when those

[5:24] appointments happen at the start of next

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

[5:28] elected official.

[5:30] So, it's um,

[5:31] for me this is, uh, we're moving from a

[5:33] sort of foundational time where those

[5:34] seats are exclusive have been

[5:36] exclusively for,

[5:37] um, elected officials and getting the

[5:39] foundational,

[5:41] um, systems up and running and, um,

[5:45] and then

[5:47] it should really run with a maximum I

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

[5:52] still appointed by

[5:54] council. So, today I'd be looking for

[5:58] I'll turn into a motion, but just why

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

[6:04] to do that

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

[6:07] executing the recruitment and

[6:10] consideration of

[6:12] what those recommendations would be to

[6:14] bring forward to council for

[6:17] in time for swearing in, which is when

[6:19] all the new appointments would would

[6:22] take place. So,

[6:25] that's

[6:26] the the concept and

[6:29] um

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

[6:31] times

[6:32] with new councils and appointments and

[6:35] it really impacts the the operations.

[6:37] So, I want to make sure that we're sort

[6:39] of setting this organization up as best

[6:41] we can to um

[6:43] to move. So, that would be that's the

[6:45] essence recommendation. I'll I can turn

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

[6:51] um

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

[6:56] um

[6:57] in advance of that. And there is a

[6:59] future touch point which we'll have in

[7:00] September

[7:02] um that has some we've done a few

[7:04] administrative things as this this body

[7:06] of like executing some legal documents

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

[7:09] that

[7:10] uh on the horizon as well, but I this

[7:12] one I wanted to make sure we had as much

[7:13] room as possible

[7:15] if we were to give this direction to

[7:18] uh that board.

[7:20] So, that's the CliffsNotes.

[7:23] Um

[7:25] any

[7:26] uh

[7:27] Can I answer any any any questions um on

[7:31] this or yeah, Councillor Pennycook, we

[7:32] can get started.

[7:33] » So, is this a request of the board or

[7:36] direction to our appointed members of

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

[7:41] or what is the specific

[7:43] » So it would be um

[7:45] it would be I think it at this point it

[7:47] would be that we write a

[7:50] It's a bit of an odd one as I'm the

[7:51] chair of the board. So it's kind of six

[7:53] of one half dozen the other. The board

[7:55] sees this as a way to um this could be a

[7:58] way to make sure that the we have the

[8:00] appropriate skill sets around around the

[8:02] the table and that we get um

[8:06] and is is one piece. I think that as a

[8:12] council uh the best the best practices

[8:14] that is like a maximum of one and uh

[8:17] some would even argue that not have it

[8:19] keeping elected officials away from

[8:21] these these things is the best is the

[8:22] best course of action

[8:24] um as they are very community um based.

[8:27] So I wanted to set um so it's it's it's

[8:32] either it's either or and um but I do

[8:35] think that having um

[8:38] uh

[8:39] getting down to that one elected

[8:40] official and having

[8:41] two uh

[8:43] two others uh appointed to our that's

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

[8:48] is um

[8:50] is appropriate. So that's what we're

[8:51] trying to get that's what I'm trying to

[8:52] get at.

[8:54] » Sorry for my lack of uh are we then

[8:57] changing our

[8:59] District of Squamish appointment policy

[9:01] or we asking or directing

[9:04] the Community Forest Board to do

[9:07] something?

[9:08] » We're asking the Community Forest Board

[9:10] to to uh bring forward recommendations

[9:14] for council consideration. So our legal

[9:16] the founding documents of all this say

[9:18] that the members are appointed by

[9:19] council but doesn't speak to who those

[9:21] members are. So we in any of our other

[9:25] groups where we have seats we don't

[9:27] recruit like the housing society for

[9:30] instance. We appoint one member but the

[9:32] housing society does the rest. The the

[9:35] the board similarly we appoint one

[9:37] member uh or we appoint one elected

[9:40] official, but we actually appoint the

[9:42] board in that case. These things go

[9:43] together in different in different ways.

[9:45] And I've never seen None of these do we

[9:49] we as a council go to community and

[9:51] solicit applications for and so on.

[9:52] That's usually done to the

[9:54] by the external and other They look

[9:57] after the appointments. In this case,

[9:58] they'd be making a recommendation more

[10:00] like the library board for council

[10:01] consideration. A council could take it

[10:03] or leave it at that point. That's going

[10:05] to be a decision for the next council,

[10:07] but

[10:09] Yeah, go ahead.

[10:11] » Um

[10:14] So, the board is made up of You said

[10:16] half Squamish Nation, half District of

[10:19] Squamish.

[10:21] And now

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

[10:26] put forward recommendations

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

[10:34] So, the Squamish Nation

[10:36] is also making recommendations on the

[10:38] District of Squamish

[10:40] components of the board.

[10:45] » Yes.

[10:46] Now,

[10:48] the reason

[10:49] I thought I'd start with the uh the

[10:50] short version of the answer. I'll go

[10:52] back a bit further.

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

[10:56] first um

[10:59] joint uh

[11:01] um

[11:02] first partnership between the two

[11:04] organizations, uh the nation has um

[11:08] their own

[11:09] uh

[11:10] process for these for these

[11:12] appointments, and I see them

[11:14] I see these two processes um

[11:18] uh

[11:19] needing to sort of would benefit from

[11:21] alignment over time.

[11:23] Um but right now we have we don't really

[11:26] have a process for the appointments,

[11:27] particularly external appointments to

[11:31] people that aren't council members to to

[11:33] this body. So, I think having the the

[11:36] body come up with a recruitment

[11:40] policy and figure out their needs and

[11:43] and um put forward recommendations to to

[11:46] council. The decision still lies with

[11:48] with council, but it's regardless of

[11:50] who's

[11:51] appointed

[11:53] then uh to the

[11:56] regardless of who the board is,

[11:58] um it's it's the board has um

[12:02] some additional uh capacity and knows

[12:04] their needs and uh and and so on.

[12:08] Um so, that's that's sort of the the

[12:10] thought process there, but there is that

[12:11] piece where yes, folks um appointed by

[12:15] the Squamish Nation

[12:17] can uh have input into the the

[12:21] the

[12:22] future appoint- appointees.

[12:25] Potentially. I don't know if that's a I

[12:27] think that's a neutral thing at this

[12:29] point, but you can have a positive or

[12:30] negative to that.

[12:35] » What's the fundamental purpose for

[12:37] having District of Squamish and Squamish

[12:40] Nation have appointees?

[12:44] Like individual appointees on the

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

[12:48] I I can imagine a

[12:50] a balancing of perspectives.

[12:52] Um

[12:54] and are we losing like

[12:57] the nation doesn't have a responsibility

[13:00] to find people who will represent the

[13:03] District of Squamish and the District of

[13:05] Squamish interests.

[13:07] So,

[13:09] how do those interests get

[13:12] community like

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

[13:15] um

[13:16] it

[13:17] it's an interesting piece and I think

[13:19] that as we go through

[13:23] um sort of an evolution of all of our

[13:26] processes, there'll the lessons learned.

[13:28] I think that the safe when it comes

[13:31] right down to it

[13:33] both partners have the ability to

[13:34] appoint

[13:36] equal members, three and three.

[13:39] Um who they are is up to the individ-

[13:41] individuals. We're just at the ask would

[13:44] be that um they would put forward some

[13:47] some recommendations for council to to

[13:50] take her or leave and

[13:52] that board does have

[13:54] some capacity to do that work that I

[13:57] don't see council

[14:00] doing in other cases and so it feels

[14:02] appropriate to me that they would do

[14:04] that. Now,

[14:05] perhaps over time, like I said, their

[14:08] their process can align these two

[14:10] processes can align, but right now they

[14:13] have an internal process that they do.

[14:16] I don't know, I can't speak to that.

[14:18] Um

[14:19] and then we don't really have a process

[14:22] except for council appointments that

[14:24] happen

[14:25] you know, annual- annually and

[14:28] it's time to have

[14:31] members of the community contribute to

[14:34] that to that board and to have um

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

[14:39] appointments from the

[14:41] from us as myself and counselor

[14:43] counselor Greenlaw and

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

[14:47] members from community

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

[14:52] would be best and I think the best

[14:53] mechanism to do that is to ask the

[14:55] community forest board to bring forth

[14:56] some recommendations.

[14:58] I understand the duplication sort of

[15:00] piece with the nation appoint- uh

[15:02] appointees, but um

[15:05] it's not a

[15:07] it's very much a

[15:09] the board is rule- is um governed by

[15:13] um uh um consensus and it's been a very

[15:16] collaborative consensus space. It's not

[15:18] a really a versus um

[15:21] piece that way. So, but I

[15:24] That's why I I feel some comfort in in

[15:27] that.

[15:28] » Right. I and I'm not in any way implying

[15:30] that it is a a conflict or

[15:33] I'm imagining a process

[15:36] our policies and our processes

[15:39] should protect everybody in the event

[15:42] that individuals do get into those

[15:43] positions who do want to take advantage.

[15:46] And so,

[15:47] uh if that does occur, I want to make

[15:49] like

[15:50] the the construction of

[15:52] half nation and half Squamish

[15:55] that must have been intentional.

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

[15:59] I'm concerned that

[16:01] handing over recommendations to the

[16:02] board itself

[16:05] unless that's done

[16:07] equally

[16:08] with the nation and the district

[16:11] that we're creating an asymmetry where

[16:13] an asymmetry doesn't need to exist.

[16:16] » I think we're on the path to

[16:19] alignment, but I'll recognize asymmetry

[16:22] um at the at this point. Um

[16:26] so,

[16:28] I I tend to to

[16:31] agree those seats are always the

[16:34] language is appointed by.

[16:36] So, I

[16:38] could see a scenario where a qualified

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

[16:43] but is also

[16:45] votes in our local elections, a member

[16:47] of our community, may very well be the

[16:49] best candidate for one of the seats

[16:50] appointed by the District of Squamish.

[16:52] So, um

[16:54] I

[16:56] I get that it's that it's uh

[16:58] unprecedented, but we're sort of

[17:00] leading in this in this area, and I

[17:03] think we're going to find some spaces

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

[17:07] uh take a bit of um

[17:10] to wrap our mind our our collective

[17:12] minds around as we as we do that, but

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

[17:17] that

[17:18] council will have the

[17:22] makes the appointment. So, we're not

[17:23] handing over any any control. We're

[17:25] asking really for anything for asking

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

[17:29] help to

[17:31] to do recruitment that will meet the

[17:33] needs of the of the board and bring

[17:35] forward some

[17:36] some recommendations um

[17:39] to uh to council.

[17:46] » Councilor Bingle.

[17:48] » So, if I can summarize or maybe just

[17:50] restate to make sure I understand,

[17:52] the proposal is that going forward,

[17:55] if all this is supported,

[17:58] um

[17:59] that Squamish Nation would retain three

[18:02] appointments, District of Squamish would

[18:04] retain three appointments.

[18:06] The District of Squamish at this point

[18:07] is asking the

[18:09] the uh Community Forest Board to provide

[18:12] recommendations for our three

[18:14] appointments. We may or may not agree to

[18:17] those and may appoint someone else or

[18:19] not, but we've just asked for that

[18:21] assistance. The Squamish Nation may

[18:24] choose sooner or later to follow a

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

[18:31] here, the only new thing

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

[18:38] to give council

[18:40] some recommendations again, which we are

[18:42] not compelled to

[18:45] follow through on. And then, I think

[18:47] part of what you said is our practice

[18:48] has been to appoint two councilors sort

[18:50] of almost separate from this. We may

[18:52] decide to not appoint two councilors,

[18:56] but again, our appointments that that's

[18:57] at our discretion as a council.

[19:01] » Yeah, I generally agree with that. I

[19:03] think that um

[19:05] uh

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

[19:11] interacts with

[19:13] the processes of both of its partners

[19:15] being the the district and the nation.

[19:18] Um

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

[19:21] to meet the requirements of each of each

[19:23] group. And if we take this step, um

[19:28] perhaps there can be a more

[19:30] you know, that to me this is a the first

[19:31] step into like that alignment. Maybe

[19:33] it's not the same process. Maybe for

[19:34] very good reasons

[19:36] there's another process of like, "Hey,

[19:38] identify your needs and we'll find you

[19:39] some folks." So, maybe that's the way

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

[19:42] process.

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

[19:47] important um

[19:50] important step and also um

[19:53] uh

[19:55] most most uh community forests have

[19:59] uh one or less elected officials and are

[20:02] built under the same structure that

[20:04] we're on on the board.

[20:06] So, that's

[20:07] that's um but that piece in and of

[20:09] itself, I think is a

[20:12] is um that's a bigger a bigger

[20:14] discussion if we want if I I'm not

[20:16] recommending that we step away from

[20:17] having elected official on the board.

[20:19] That'll be a discussion for as this uh

[20:22] entity has some more um

[20:25] uh

[20:27] more more more time to to mature and uh

[20:31] and it and evolve.

[20:33] But I think that um

[20:35] I know that we don't have the capa- I I

[20:37] haven't seen the capacity nor do I

[20:38] expect the capacity to emerge between

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

[20:43] more board members

[20:44] uh to recruit them um

[20:48] uh effectively to meet the the board's

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

[20:52] needs through the board.

[20:54] I'm going to go to

[20:55] Councillor Greenlaw.

[20:58] » Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment.

[21:00] Like my understanding of this is um

[21:04] this is to bring the district more into

[21:07] alignment with what the Squamish Nation

[21:09] is currently practicing, but also

[21:11] anybody who comes to the board has to be

[21:13] approved by the board.

[21:15] So, it's not

[21:16] » By council. By council.

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

[21:26] » Yeah.

[21:27] So, my motion would be that the

[21:31] that council authorize the mayor to

[21:34] write a letter to the community forest

[21:37] inviting them to

[21:39] bring forward two recommendations for

[21:42] board seats

[21:43] for appointment

[21:45] in

[21:46] Q4.

[21:49] Second by Council by Council French. Do

[21:51] you have Do you have a question?

[21:52] » Well, possibly a friendly amendment

[21:53] 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

[22:03] uh enough but I do think this is an

[22:04] important step. Um

[22:06] um forward and with with good governance

[22:10] uh of of the

[22:12] um of the community forest and working

[22:14] in a good way with um

[22:16] with the Squamish Nation. I think this

[22:17] is um

[22:19] a step towards having this entity really

[22:20] stand on its own properly on its own on

[22:23] its own two feet and um I know we have a

[22:26] lot of expertise in the community that

[22:27] we would benefit from uh harnessing uh

[22:30] to ensure the success of this important

[22:33] endeavor with our friends at the

[22:34] Squamish Nation.

[22:36] Um Council French.

[22:38] » Sorry, I I I just want to make sure I

[22:39] really understand this two number. I

[22:42] understand that we are thinking

[22:44] a point one elected going forward and

[22:47] two as recommended, but we do not or we

[22:50] would not want to have a a sort of four

[22:54] people recommended as all acceptable and

[22:57] we will pick only we will only pick two,

[22:59] but like or do we say no, you shall not

[23:03] give us more than two recommendations

[23:04] and we are going to

[23:06] pick only those two that you

[23:08] » Um, in other cases,

[23:10] um

[23:11] uh,

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

[23:13] rec- the two that are recommended. Um,

[23:16] and this is a new process, so we'll have

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

[23:19] the number

[23:21] available is the total number available

[23:22] is three seats and uh, I'd like to see

[23:25] two recommendations and the other one

[23:27] stays open for

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

[23:31] to to

[23:32] to appoint as elected official.

[23:35] And I also want to recognize that

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

[23:39] recommendations from the community

[23:41] forest, in which case they can

[23:44] those are we're not

[23:46] committing the council to any particular

[23:48] path, but I think they'd be ill-advised

[23:50] to not, um

[23:52] consider these recommendations that

[23:53] should come from this process.

[23:56] Any other comments?

[23:59] Um seeing none, I'll call the question.

[24:02] All in favor?

[24:03] Any opposed?

[24:05] Was that a Was that a favor hand or a

[24:07] comment hand, Counselor Greenlaw?

[24:09] » Favor hand. Favor hand.

[24:10] » Nice. Well done. Um

[24:13] motion carries unanimously. Thank you.

[24:16] Um, and just as a a foreshadow, there'll

[24:17] be some um

[24:20] uh, in early September, there'll be um

[24:22] uh,

[24:23] another item on the on the Genoa and

[24:25] Folsom um, sort of update from the

[24:27] community forest on operations uh, so

[24:29] far and um,

[24:31] hopefully strategic plan will be ready

[24:32] to share at that point and and so on.

[24:34] Um, so work is underway.

[24:37] That's Thank you for um,

[24:40] for this. Um Counselor Hamilton, can I

[24:43] help you?

[24:44] » Motion to terminate this meeting.

[24:46] » I'm going to second that, and but we're

[24:47] all going to get two points because it's

[24:49] been an epic. So, uh, all in favor?

[24:52] Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank Thank

[24:55] much, everybody.

[24:58] » It's a new record.

[25:00] 4 and 1/2 hours over.

[25:05] » Don't tempt me.

[25:07] And if you think of it as a multiplier,

[25:09] I hope that's the

Special Business Meeting - 10 Aug 2026

Transcript