We’re just getting settled into the lazy days of summer, so you’d think I would have something better to think about than the upcoming civic election — a full three months away — but, sadly, no.
Maybe it’s because I haven’t gone on vacation yet, or maybe it’s because I’m in the middle of a hellish kitchen reno (is there any other kind?), but for some reason, speculating on what will emerge as the big campaign issues seems like lots of fun – ya, I know, that’s the really sad part.
Anyway, I’m not the only political junkie out there, so let’s ponder the upcoming talking points. The Richmond Citizens Association (RCA) has just jumped out in front with a press release. Its headline reads: “We Need New Conflict of Interest and Anti-Corruption Rules.” In particular, it points to campaign donations influencing council decisions. (See page 20)
The issue of campaign finances certainly took hold in the last provincial election as news of $1,000/plate dinners with the premier became front page news. By the end of the campaign, all parties vowed to ban corporate and union donations, as well as cut personal donations.
However, the issue may not have the same legs in the municipal election, simply because when the NDP stiffened rules at the provincial level, it also did so at the civic. Granted, individuals can still give hefty “gifts” and money raised by candidates before October 2017 can be kept, so that will advantage some, but the legs are now a little tired on this issue.
But fundraising is just part of RCA’s platform. It says, if elected, it will appeal to the Union of British Columbia Municipalities (UBCM) to amend the community charter, which regulates municipalities such as Richmond. The amendment would ensure elected officials “refrain from engaging in employment, own a business, or hold any interest if the activities present a conflict of interest.”
This is clearly aimed at councillors who are developers and land speculators because, according to the release, “Richmond City Council has had the ability to conduct closed-door deals and negotiations that benefit big-money donors, property developers, speculators, and well-connected lobbyists.” It also talks about “insider cronyism, secrecy and backroom deals.”
Mayor Malcolm Brodie has a point when he told the News, if the RCA wants transparency, it should be transparent with its evidence and not just make inflammatory accusations.
The other tricky thing here is that being a city councillor is not really a full-time job. Most either work or have active business interests. And if that work is in Richmond, chances are it will conflict with the city’s at some point.
However, when it comes to a campaign message, the RCA is tapping into a certain unease. Council’s decision last May to allow mega mansions in the Agricultural Land Reserve was a head scratcher. And when it’s hard to see the logic of a decision, it’s easy to speculate.
I know better than to hang my hat on any election prediction, but clearly transparency is a concern for folks from all sides and slates. Time will tell if it’s equally concerning for the average voter — whoever that is.
