REJECT "GROUPTHINK"

Reject “Groupthink” on November 15!

   AbbotsfordFIRST (AF) has put forward five candidates as a group of representatives (“Groupthink”) that it wishes to send to the Council table to represent our community’s interests. From the very start (August), when the first press release was issued, to this last week before election, AbbotsfordFIRST has presented a platform on a variety of issues, containing some unsupportable statements of fact.

   AbbotsfordFIRST and its candidates have maintained a stubborn refusal to acknowledge those factural errors, not to mention an unwillingness to make corrections when the errors were pointed out. One example will suffice. Its website states that the City has been without an Official Community Plan for three years. In fact, the Community Charter stipulates that every municipality must have an OCP, and each year a bylaw is passed renewing our OCP. That fact was communicated by email, in person, and several weeks ago at the All-Candidates Forum. Yet, a stubborn persistence continues to stay with that message: this week’s 16-page flyer (page 11) perpetuates that error, and its website has not been corrected. This reflects stubbornness, bordering on arrogance, of not willing to be held accountable, both individually and as a party.

   Abbotsford is the third most culturally-diverse community in B.C., and its economic base is similarly diverse. The citizens of Abbotsford not only need and deserve to be well-represented at the Council table, but also to have a council of approachable and accountable individuals. There is no place for party politics (Groupthink) at the municipal level, and certainly not in Abbotsford. I have expressed my views on the matter on more than one occasion; both mayoral candidates also have strong views on this matter - Henry Braun has expressed his views in a blog - The Importance of Independent-Thinking And Principle-Based Decision-Making - and I know that Bruce Banman has a similar view.

   This is not a personal plea, but a general plea to elect 8 independent voices to the Council table on Election Day – November 15^th!

If you agree, please circulate this among your acquaintances.

I WAS CONVINCED - I WAS WRONG!

2011 Referendum on Water

Three years ago, I was part of the City’s campaign to convince the public of a need to invest significant dollars into a project aimed at water security. My belief at that time was based on a number of findings and recommendations dating back to the 1990s, when the Abbotsford and Mission water utility was managed by the FVRD.

FVRD, Mission, and Abbotsford City staff believed a secure water supply needed to be addressed by 2016; internationally-renowned, and well-paid engineering consultants agreed; the Abbotsford-Mission Water & Sewer Commission agreed; both Councils agreed (until late spring of 2011). I was convinced – I was wrong; we were wrong!

Thank goodness, the instincts and collective wisdom of our residents prevailed, not to mention key individuals who raised red flags in opposition. Only recently, engineering staff have indicated that our present supply of water should last beyond 2030! 

Moving forward, a number of things need to be addressed: 

1. Efficient distribution of available water.
2. Redundancy in the system (A major landslide in the spring blocked access to Norrish Creek supply for a number of weeks.).
3. Building our Water Reserve Fund for that day when the investment will be required.

EPITOME OF ARROGANCE

Award-Winning Department

   The City has been blessed for many years, not only with a Finance staff that is highly qualified and dedicated, but also for the national recognition given to our Finance department for its high level of reporting.

   The City's Annual Report for the years 1997 through 2012 received the Canadian Award for Financial Reporting from the Government Finance Officers Association. The award recognizes excellence in governmental accounting and financial reporting, and represents a significant accomplishment by the City of Abbotsford and its staff.

   The GFOA established the Canadian Award for Excellence in Financial Reporting Program (CAnFR Program) in 1986 to encourage and assist Canadian local governments to go beyond the minimum requirements of generally accepted accounting principles, as set by the Public Sector Accounting Board of the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, to prepare comprehensive annual financial reports that evidence the spirit of transparency and full disclosure and then to recognize individual governments that succeed in achieving that goal.

   Reports submitted tothe CAnFR program are reviewed by selected members of the GFOA professional staff and a review committee, which comprises individuals with expertise in Canadian public-sector financial reporting and includes financial statement preparers, independent auditors, academics, and other finance professionals. 

   The fine work that this department is credited with, is overseen by the City's Chief Administrative Officer, George Murray, who is himself a Certified General Accountant. Mr. Murray came to the employ of the City via the Fraser Valley Regional District, where he served as CAO, and prior to that, School District #34, where he served for many years as Secretary-Treasurer.

   In the two years since Mr. Murray arrived at the City, he has helped orchestrate two near-zero tax increases without cutting programs or jobs, while accumulating a surplus of almost $20m., and while paying down debt by approximately $18m. Both mayoral candidates, Banman and Braun, speak highly of Mr. Murray's accomplishments, and Mr. Braun is quoted as saying that he expects that history will show that Mr. Murray was the best city manager Abbotsford ever had.

   This is all to say that I find the public statement of AbbotsfordFIRST, on their website, regarding the City’s financial status most presumptuous: 

   Respectfully, we disagree with nearly all of the points you (Councillors Loewen and MacGregor) raise. It is incredibly important that City Councillors understand it's Financial Statements.  We have brought together a team to analyze the financial position of the city including Chartered Accountant, Eric Nyvall. Years ago, he articled at the very same firm that acts as the City's auditor and ensures that the financial statements are presented according to Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP).  We also have numerous business owners in our volunteer base and advisory board.

      see Link

   That this “team of experts”, represented by a CA and local business owners presume to have a firmer grasp and understanding of the City’s financial affairs than the City’s own highly trained and qualified team is almost laughable, if not an insult. When will this arrogance find an end?

TAKE YOUR CHOICE

Option #1 or #2?

   Criticism is easy – it’s the decision-making that attracts criticism that is difficult. Are mistakes sometimes made? They most certainly are and hopefully, lessons are learned in the process. I welcome constructive criticism, but when criticism is only that, I become disinterested in listening. That kind of criticism is often just a cover for the critic’s own shortcomings, whatever they may be.

   Over the last year, and particularly now, during the election campaign, the topic of drawing on the City's Reserve funds to construct the two interchanges has been often raised. It is that issue I wish to address here.

   In 2008, the world economy went into a serious recession. Within the year, our federal government realized intervention was needed, and they launched the Economic Action Plan to generate jobs. Grants were offered across Canada to invest in infrastructure. The government wanted ‘shovel-ready’ projects, and offered one-third funding, contingent on the provincial and municipal governments each contributing one-third as well.

   It must also be noted that the federal government was in the practice of not making their one-third contribution until completion of the project. The choice that Council of the day faced was: 1) turn the offer down, or 2) draw on Reserves to provide our one-third of $50m. (each interchange was priced at $25m.). Council chose the latter option.

   Both projects were completed under budget, with the Clearbrook interchange significantly under budget. On the Clearbrook project, the City built it with its own supervising Engineer. A total of 21 local companies were awarded contracts in the construction of that interchange, creating employment for many local workers, and thereby providing for their families during a very serious economic downturn.

   In both cases, the City could have settled for the lower cost and saved money in the short-term. However, the City requested that it be permitted to apply those saved dollars to other necessary infrastructure projects. The federal authorities agreed on condition that the projects would be “connected” in some way to the two interchanges.

   At the McCallum interchange, the most significant additional work was the climbing lane on the freeway, between Sumas Way and McCallum Road, where traffic bottlenecks were common. Additional projects included the McCallum parking lot and bus stop, as well as some water/sewer infrastructure. At Clearbrook, where much more money was saved because the City did the building and contracting, significant road infrastructure was completed, namely, Clearbrook Road, from the interchange to King Road; and Marshall Road, from the traffic circle to Mt. Lehman Rd.

   That entire extra infrastructure was paid for on the basis of 33 cents to the dollar, instead of having property taxpayers shoulder the complete cost of constructing, which would eventually have to happen. Our citizens were saved millions of dollars in property taxes. Criticism is often based on only part of the story, at the expense of the truth – the other part of the story. 

   I haven’t mentioned the airport infrastructure improvements, which also entailed a $25m. investment, and also including additional work due to completion under budget. The new terminal is the result of those extra dollars, with the Airport Authority picking up only 33 cents-on-the-dollar costs.

   In all my difficult decision-making at the Council table, I am guided by the principle of what is in the best interests of the community at large. There were two options: Council chose the latter; based on the criticism leveled, I assume the critics would have chosen the former. I’ll gladly take the criticism; in this case, the City certainly benefited. I take encouragement from the words of Aristotle, who said:

“To avoid criticism say nothing, do nothing, be nothing.”