I think it is entirely valid to ask “why is it that no funds are ever allocated to finding shelter for the homeless or treatment for the addicted, but when a private corporation has messed up and asks for back-up, that the coffers are immediately opened??”

Also, in an election, a lack of due diligence and breach of trust are important matters when considering whether to vote any incumbents back in.

It is time for some real whistle-blower protection at City Hall.

When City officials tell me not to worry about a real estate deal funded by taxpayers, thats when I start to worry.

And persuant to Rob’s point, think it is also important to realize that the shuffling of Ms. Lo off to Buffalo, at least according to Gary Mason, (and his sources), began last spring. Further, some of the same folks who were elevated to take over a number of Ms. Lo’s duties are the same good people who are out front telling us what’s what, and what’s good for us now.

All without answering A Dave’s central, critical question.

OK?

.

At some point Councillors and the public are probably going to be surprised that the much-vaunted Property Endowment Fund isn’t really worth $2.7 billion, and that what value it does have is mostly not very liquid.

But in the back and forth this is what emerges: Without Estelle Lo’s pivotal opinion, what the hell were any of them, NPA or Vision, thinking when they didn’t halt the meeting just on that point alone?????

It is unfortunate that we pay councillors only 50K a year.

Because at 125K per annum, you would have had some seasoned business people woodshedding Judy Rogers for not explaining where the CFO was and what her opinion was/is.
Not ten non-business types, in a temporary bubble of airheadedness, making a bloody decision on a 100M proposition, without all the cards on the table.

What a complete joke city council has devevolved into…

I am not entirely clear or confident that City staff have the skills, expertise and degree of independence in this case to provide our elected representatives with the information that they need to exercise a duty of care – which is what we expect.

We may never know.

According to the Global News hour last night,
Vancouver city staff has “identified” the suspect councillor involved in removing the in-camera documents through computerized card swipe data as well as city surveillance video.

As former mayor Larry Campbell said yesterday he would turn the matter into a criminal investigation.

Certainly breach of trust issues come to fore.

I’m sure everyone also now wants to know the name of this councillor.

If the individual’s name does not come out until later on, could we see a municipal by-election in the offing? It’s certainly possible.

Where the two parties differ is not over things they know or don’t know about Ms. Lo and her concerns, but in whether they think there should be more information released on all of this.