Frances Bula header image 2

Young, diverse slate wins big at Vision park-board nomination

June 23rd, 2014 · 39 Comments

I dropped by the voting and the announcement yesterday of the winner’s in Vision Vancouver’s run-off for park-board and school-board candidates on this fall’s slate.

Obviously, Vision is touting this as a huge sign of democracy in action, with 1,650 voters out, and critics seeing it as a triumph of slate voting for a group favoured by the Vision backroom. It certainly is a success for Vision on one level, to get this group of relatively young people involved, with representation from the city’s increasingly active Filipino community and always active Indo community.

I’m not sure about either claim, as the obvious NDP vs. left (federal) Liberal partisanship that emerged was not totally what the party was looking for. In the past, Vision has tended to slightly favour the federal Liberals as a way of trying to capture the centre (remember when they chose fed Liberal Ian Baillie rather than forever NDPer Stephen Learey as ED for the party several years ago?).

Seemed to me, from what I heard, that the slate win was more an issue of a group that took advantage of lots of support from experienced NDP organizers (people who’ve worked with Dix, Eby, Elmore) to mount a full-on campaign that the others weren’t really expecting. (Nicholas Ellan, on Twitter, said it was coming into a knife fight with a bazooka — an apt metaphor.)

I know that some of those running — experienced community activists who have put in their time with Vision, like Catherine Evans and Brent Granby — were a bit stunned by the results, which saw the least well-known member of the slate, Corree Tull, come in a full 300-400 votes ahead of them.

And why all the interest in park board, you might ask?

Well, although someone on Twitter reprimanded me for suggesting it, it’s obvious that it’s a good first step for anyone who is contemplating a political career. Spencer Herbert was a park-board commissioner when his party wasn’t even in power but he used the position so effectively, garnered so much media attention through his savvy, that he was a shoo-in for the NDP nomination later. That doesn’t mean everyone who ran for park board is planning to move on up or that they don’t care about park-board issues. But clearly park board is a place for minor-league tryouts, to show how you handle being in the public eye and what you can do with your tiny position of power. (After all, these people only make about $13,000 a year and their budget is largely controlled by city council, so it’s not like they can remake the universe.)

Vision put out the exact vote count this morning. Appended here for the numbers oriented among you.

Park Board

Trish Kelly – 1662 – nominated
Naveen Girn – 1125 – nominated
Sammi Jo Rumbaua – 1029 – nominated
Corree Tull – 894 – nominated
Graham Anderson – 567
Catherine Evans – 526
Brent Granby – 505
Katherine Day – 428
Mark Mitchell – 324

School Board

Joy Alexander – 1163 – nominated
Ian Ross McDonald – 428

Categories: Uncategorized

  • DF

    For the number fixated: how did Trish get 1662, when only 1650 voted? Or does this total include the advance vote?

  • Silly Season

    Good assessment of the political ‘facts of life’.

    Does this mean there’s an internal struggle going on between NDP and Liberals within the Vision tent?

  • Frances Bula

    That is odd, as the 1,650 was the total, counting the advance vote.

  • Silly Season

    Whoa.

  • Silly Season

    Looking at the winning ‘team’ and their backers….a reminder:

    You can win the riding. But lose the war.

    😉

  • Frances Bula

    Though I thought I did hear 1,660-something when I was actually at the meeting. I was surprised when they put ou 1,650 in the news release.

  • Frances Bula

    Actually, looking back, that 1,662 must be a typo because no one got over 1,200. So it must be 1,162. But kinda Freudian, wouldn’t you say?

  • DF

    1162 makes more sense, otherwise the spread between the top slate vote and the bottom of the slate would be almost 800 votes. Without plumping each of the nine candidate could get an average of 733 votes. With the revised number the first and last candidate are about evenly above and below average. Kind of a skewed bell curve, but not a black swan.

  • rf

    Ok…just to be a jackass….

    If ‘everyone’ on Vision’s slates is LBTQ, is it still diverse?

  • teririch

    With the exception of Brent Granby, I have no idea who any of these people are.

  • brilliant

    Poor Brent Granby, always a bridesmaid never a bride…

  • Trish Kelly got 1162. You can see it in some of the pictures posted on twitter (https://twitter.com/mdobrinskaya/status/480926311506915328/photo/1). She’s a great candidate and am not surprised she topped the list.

    My preferred candidates didn’t get elected, but I’m not too disappointed. There were more qualified candidates than spots. I was really hoping Graham Anderson and Brent Granby would break into the top 4, but it’s tough fighting against a slate as a single candidate.

  • JamieLee

    What this commentary misses is that the new young slate was put together by the waspy backroom of Vision. These new faces were also willing participants to the deal-making of the backroom. This tells me that these new faces are willing to go along with being directed by the backroom. This is no different than the current Vision Commissioners who always and still do as they are told. This new younger crop may be the new faces of Vision but sadly for voters it is still the same old Vision. And the only outcome of moving forward with Vision will be the complete dismantling of an independent Park Board.

  • Silly Season

    @Canadian Veggie,

    Really. Slate voting—WITHIN a poli party. You don’t find this somewhat troubling? And especially for the other candidates who were sucker…er…selected to run in this ‘race’? Boy, THEY were surprised!

    The punters at Hastings Park could only dream of having an opporunity to lay a bet bet on such a ‘sure thing’.

  • @SillySeason – Do slates trouble me? No. Vision members still had the ultimate choice. The winners had anywhere from 54%-70% of the votes cast. Pretty healthy sign of approval.

    I thought it was a pretty savvy move for the 4 candidates to form a slate. I’m surprised others didn’t follow suit. Every candidate who signed up members had committed supporters with 3 extra votes to spread around. It makes sense to pool those supporters. I know Brent Granby suggested his supporters also vote for Graham Anderson, Naveen Girn, and and Sammie Jo Rumbaua, but he didn’t get reciprocal support.

    I’m not familar with the innner workings of political parties, but from what I’ve heard slates are reasonably common. Whenever there are multiple positions to choose, slates make sense.

    Like COPE choosing its executives
    http://www.straight.com/news/rival-slates-set-battle-control-cope-executive-agm

    Or Vision choosing council candidates in 2008
    http://www.francesbula.com/2008-vancouver-civic-election/sorting-out-the-vision-candidates/

    Are you suggesting slates are rare within political parties?

  • Everyman

    If I were a regular golfer at Langara, I’d be worried.

  • rf

    At least they will be building some additional bathrooms on the course! 🙂

  • teririch

    Not so long ago, Vision was setting their hair on fire over the way the NPA was vetting their mayoral candidates.

    I always love the look at them but don’t look at us form of attack.

    Anyways, Vision will bring in anyone that knows the word ‘Yes’ and who will not ask any questions. Anyone willing to sacrifice their independant thought.

    With Vision, you are either with them, or you are a terrorist.

  • boohoo

    @17

    “With Vision, you are either with them, or you are a terrorist.”

    LOL You guys are too much…

  • I questioned Vision about that 1662 for Trish Kelly and they confirmed it was a typo and that 1162 is the correct number. They didn’t seem concerned enough to reissue their email to members with the correction though which in my mind is rather dumb. Putting out a result that gives one candidate more than 100% of the vote and then not correcting it does not inspire confidence in their process.

  • teririch

    @boohoo #19

    You might find it amusing, but it is pretty close to the reality of things.

    Kerry Jang made some more ‘great’ comments about those persons listed in a legal suit against he and Meggs and their percived conflict of interest over Heather Place. (Georgia Straight)

  • spartikus

    You might find it amusing, but it is pretty close to the reality of things.

    So an internal political party election of 1650 people is “close” to this.

    You continue to be your own worst enemy.

  • I think the link is broken Spart-man, but I doubt anyone of good conscience could not catch your drift. I would add that Ms Rich’s hysterical hyperbole is an insensitive affront to all the people in the world who can speak of terrorism from a first-hand perspective. The whinging of the entitled from the hellhole that is Kitsilano must leave them trying to choose between laughing and crying at the sheer ignorance of it all.

  • boohoo

    @21

    No, no it’s not. Stop being ridiculous.

  • chow

    Now, now boys. Pointing out the idiocy and offensiveness of Ms. Richardson’s comments will get your comments deleted because pointing out the obvious is seen as a personal attack on the poor dear. It may get your comments deleted.

    The only amusing part of her comments was the extent to which they echoed another stupid and offensive comment made by her soulmate Vic Toews when in response to principled opposition to a bill, he said to the Opposition: you are either with us or you are with the child molesters.
    Offensive yes, stupid, yes, but it got him an appointment as a judge from the Harperites.
    So, if it worked for Toews, it might work for Richardson: from shilling ad copy to a supreme court judgeship. Harperite justice at work.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    @Chow#25: OT yet again. Any discussion of Vision gets quickly side-tracked by the usual suspects. Funny that. Of course I would never suggest that they are paid shills from the Vision communications apparatus. Theye’re just kind of passively aggressive, and badly mistaken.
    I admire the way you can sling around words like idiot, stupid and offensive, all the way decrying personal attacks. Nice. Let’s drag Harper into it, too. OT as well.

  • No one is stopping you from making an on-topic comment Leghorn. Lead by example if it’s that important to you.

  • spartikus

    Funny that. Of course I would never suggest that they are paid shills from the Vision communications apparatus.

    Of course not. You only suggest LGBTQ people need to face consequences.

  • F.H.Leghorn

    Everyone must face the consequences of their decisions, unless they are destitute or in custody in which case all of their decision are made for them (euphemistically “their needs are met”) by the professional “caring” industry.
    It’s really a kind of socialist utopia where bureaucrats schedule every minute of your day and all clients receive exactly the same stipend. Those who can successfully claim victim status can even get some additional cash out of the deal or, in an election year, meaningless feel-good proclamations or maybe a plaque or monument from pandering politicians.

  • Weren’t you sniveling about off-topic comments just a few posts back?

  • @Foggy

    Except those who are too chicken to or ashamed of their own words to write them under their real name.

  • teririch
  • Steve

    It was interesting to see the slate which Vision developed in the backroom. Unfortunately the nominees fresh face, energy, and work within their selected fields is not going to be enough to erase the carnage left by Visions’ approach to “community consultation” and “community dialogue.” The Vision Parks Board was an embarasment, another unwelcome example of how to attack the core civility which binds a city together. The muzzle applied to current Vision Parks Board Commssioners is beyond an election strategy, it is a welcome relief. Is there any wonder that the community dialogue is around moving beyond the practice of voting for slates?

  • skippy

    @Everyman 16 and @rf 16
    I’ll try my post again without the cheeky, and apparently offensive twist on John Donne/Hemingway for whom the bell tolls. Hopefully Vision, NPA and any other PB candidates affiliated or otherwise will commit to maintaining Langara as a regulation 18 hole Audubon certified golf course along with Fraserview and McLeery.

  • teririch

    I see the City of Vancouver is looking for yet another communications person – for PB.

    And it comes with a $98,ooo salary.

  • Couple of points: One – how does this slate get to be called diverse? Are there any middle aged or seniors in the group? No. Are there any parents in the group? No.

    Two — as teririch is keen for you to read Kerry (“foot in mouth”) Jang’s comments in the Straight, you should also read this corrective: http://bit.ly/1lzfYgw

  • Norman

    Frances, why not just print the Vision press releases directly? It would save a lot of work.

  • ken paquette

    Comment on Jak King 36. He deleted some points I made on his blog about The Straight Article.
    He will get all hot an bothered if I don’t point out that I work for The Kettle Friendship Society and we are working towards developing the site at Venables and Commercial, so I will get that out of the way. I will add I would never say Jak was an extremist . But he said on his blog that he would have been reelected to GWAC well I was there and there is no way Jak would have gotten re-elected, comments from friends of his on his blog not withstanding. Also my comments are mine and mine alone and not endorsed by my work place. I make the comments here as he has left a link to his blog on this site so I believe that invites comment. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

  • Frances Bula

    @Norman23. I’m guessing from your comment that you didn’t actually read the post.