38 responses so far ↓

• 1 spartikus // Mar 30, 2010 at 5:27 pm

  Heh…

  AT: According to Section 162 of the Vancouver Charter, the City Electrician position can only be filled or vacated on the strictest of conditions–”fitness or merit”, that’s it.

  This is precisely the section I cited earlier to which AGT responded “you are looking at the wrong section, thus proving your point, that oyu are far from an expert.” Alas, a waste of vitriole.

  I’m sure Mr. Tsisserev has obtained a legal opinion on Section 162 (as I’m sure the City has), but I, personally, still don’t see it. It will take a judge.

  As for the rest, this has returned to “he said, she said” territory and I’ll be bowing out until further developments…

• 2 JP Ratelle // Mar 30, 2010 at 5:50 pm

  I disagree Spartikus (sic), that this is “he said, she said” territory.

  From my understanding you work in the hall. Whether you are in the former camp or the latter camp, chances are you’ve heard things around the building. I’ve heard plenty from my very close friends there. All of them indicate there are things going on that don’t pass the smell test and are questionable practices.

  This isn’t an Ark-lover camp, just a bunch of people that are concerned for the quality of work being done under the current conditions. Whether you will admit it or not, deep down you know the city is not delivering in many areas on the watch of Ballum and her direct reports.

  I will await the day when you join the growing chorus of people who see that she is a complete disaster and needs to go, although I won’t hold my breath.

  As for Frances, I have been critical to you in the past and I must commend you for posting a link that you could have completely stayed away from.

• 3 spartikus // Mar 30, 2010 at 7:14 pm

  I disagree Spartikus (sic), that this is “he said, she said” territory.

  It’s classic “he said, she said”. One side says the story is X, and the other says it’s Y. So far, the City has provided the most supporting documentation but as we see above Mr. Tsisserev is disputing some of it, including a claim of signing a letter he did not pen under duress.

  Who’s right? I dunno. Once again, I’ll second Charlie Smith at the Straight: have a 3rd party lawyer go through it all.

  From my understanding you work in the hall.

  I do not.

  I’ve heard plenty from my very close friends there.

  Hearsay. It may be true. It may not be.

  We’ve had a lot of this – people speaking on behalf of other, unnamed people. We’ve also had people claiming to work at City Hall post here anonymously. They may be who they say they are, but I can’t give it much weight.

  Posting anonymously is fine. Just don’t claim special knowledge or insight.

  For the record, I post anonymously because once in the past I started posting under my real name and an American conservative, whose argument I had just displayed as being in error, responded by posting my address and place of employment.

  It’s not worth the hassle. And besides, I really don’t have any special insight or professional knowledge of any of this.

• 4 Hoarse Whisperer // Mar 30, 2010 at 7:53 pm

  Spartikus,

  Truly, in this case, where’s there’s smoke, there’s fire.

  Frances stated she is hearing from those at the Hall who worked with Ark, most who seem to report on him favourably, both as a man and an employee.

  Looks like this one is going to go the distance.

• 5 mary // Mar 30, 2010 at 9:27 pm

  Regardless of how this particular story plays out, the Hall has become moribund. Enthusiasm is only found in those who are both exceedingly ambitious and exceedingly obedient. It takes that combination to keep going with any energy. Sad times for public service. The downward spiral has picked up speed with every City Manager since Fritz Bowers retired.

• 6 A. G. Tsakumis // Mar 30, 2010 at 11:37 pm

  In all the years Frances has had this blog, I have never read more unmitigated crap than what spartikus has offered above.

  You should post anonymously because you’re either utterly dense or blithely partisan and no zero credibility on this issue.

  “He said, she said”? Honestly, from behind the luke warm legitimacy and partial safety of a pseudonym, that statement might make sense, but in this case it makes you a prime candidate for opening day at Riverview.

  From the beginning, I listed about a half dozen of non-partisan life safety experts…not good enough. The Executive Director of the Electrical Contractors Association, who wrote the Mayor that the city is “less safe” is ignored-this is apparently good enough for you. The Mayor himself provides four separate explanations inthe span of one afternoon, and Penny Ballem has given the kind of conflicting evidence of why this man Tsisserev was so brutally executed from his position–the kind of evidence that would make even a broken bullshit detector scream for days…the media ask questions that are answered with lies and skullduggery…

  But now, we finally hear from the actual man in the middle of the entire affair and all your political puppeteers have armed you with is that it’s just he said she said???

  You are the single most pathetic commenter on any blog I’ve ever read. Astounding.

  All you people with your dripping sanctimony about what a great and honest job the Mayor is doing are now sitting there staring at each other wondering what do because I’ve caught your propeller beanie jockey in a considerable depth of hot water.

  And, Penny Ballem has clearly manipulated the facts, and has thus, disgraced her office. The only honourable thing to do would be to resign.

  Imagine the vitriol and cacophony from the cycling, cannabis latte swilling, wool sweater and sandal set if this was Judy Rogers spinning such a yarn all at taxpayers expense.

• 7 Mark Allerton // Mar 31, 2010 at 8:07 am

  I have to grant that Alex has more here than I would have credited* him with.

  However there really is only one critical piece of new information here, which is that the reason AT felt able to sign that letter was that by his own admission he had “no first hand knowledge” of the problems. If, as it appears, he really did believe there were problems, he did himself no favours in signing a letter that states…

  “I am not aware of any facts that would suggest in any way that there is anything wrong in the way the electrical inspections branch is being operated and I am not currently aware of any safety issues or dangers whatsoever.”

  That’s rather more emphatic language than I would have been happy to sign off on if I had a strong belief that there were problems – and it hurts his credibility now as a source of info on those problems.

  So if this story has legs, there needs to be a better source, someone who *would not have signed that letter*.

  (* Given all the other things Alex says outside of this topic, I don’t have a lot of credit to hand out.)

• 8 spartikus // Mar 31, 2010 at 8:18 am

  cycling, cannabis latte swilling, wool sweater and sandal set.

  Wool makes my skin itch.

• 9 MB // Mar 31, 2010 at 8:25 am

  Bloody hell on wheels, folks. The world doesn’t end at Boundary Road. Vancouver and its politics do not occupy the centre of the universe.

• 10 JP Ratelle // Mar 31, 2010 at 9:41 am

  Mark,

  The guy signed the letter under duress and you’re questioning his credibility?

  Have you ever been in a job for 17 years and achieved the highest possible accredidation in your chosen field, only to be let go for very disingenious reasons?

  Didn’t think so.

  So how could you possibly understand what was going through his mind enough to question his reasons for signing the letter?

  If you care to understand any of this I would invite you to call any industrial psychologist in the city to discuss the matter.

  What the city did was reprehensible and having blind support in the party you vote for does nothing but diminish your future rights when you have an issue with the city.

  If you can’t see that I invite you to move to North Korea or even China behind that wonderful firewall they’ve set up to control information to it’s people.

  Only then perhaps will you learn to appreciate what we have in this country, and how Ballum’s actions in this dismissal are an afront to employment rights.

• 11 landlord // Mar 31, 2010 at 10:31 am

  Former Vancouver city manager Judy Rogers was handed a $570,000 severance package when she left the city in December 2008 after working for the City for 21 years. Her base salary when she left her position was $309,144. In comparison the City Manager is paid as much as the Prime Minister of Canada (who makes a little over $315,000/yr).

  At the time Geoff Meggs said Robertson wanted to replace Rogers with Ballem because of the latter’s financial background.

  Dr. Ballem (who had never worked for the City and had left her previous two positions abruptly and under a cloud of controversy) somehow got the Visionistas to agree to a contract specifying 3 years salary as severance.

  Dismissal would thus cost the poor old taxpayer over a million dollars. The political cost to Vision (a name which grows more ironic every day) would also be substantial. Who would want the job if Dr. Ballem were to leave? How could this Council restore the faith of the electorate or staff after such a fiasco?

• 12 sv // Mar 31, 2010 at 10:53 am

  Spartikus-try merino wool as it’s far less itchy. Cannabis latté stains also rinse right out.

• 13 JP Ratelle // Mar 31, 2010 at 11:59 am

  landlord,

  What are you suggesting they do, keep her? Either way you look at the situation its toxic.

  She stays and the city has no credibility. She goes and the mayor and council have no credibility.

  As for her severence, if she violated the charter without legal evaluation from their team of vultures, and without knowledge of council and mayor, then I say fire her without severence and let her take the city to court. Only pay her a dime if she wins, which I doubt she could if its deemed she broke the charter. No severence package is enforceable when laws are broke.

  If Vision takes this position, this would actually show that Gregor has grown a pair and Vision might actually come out of this unscathed.

  Let’s say they do lend up calling for an independent investigation, regardless of the outcome, this is going to stick on them like the financing scandal stuck on Ladner.

  Too many rational people [read swing voters] already now believe malfeasance took place with respect to inspections. The city was on a deadline, they fudged, then lied, then released questionable documents. Good luck changing minds that ‘nothing – wink wink nudge nudge’ was going on.

  So what do you think they should do since you’re concerned about the $1m severence?

• 14 George // Mar 31, 2010 at 1:00 pm

  JP Ratelle…well said

  “No severence package is enforceable, if law is broken…”

  there you go, I think that is a possible reality.

• 15 Mark Allerton // Mar 31, 2010 at 1:56 pm

  JP Ratelle: for someone who’s accusing me of blind partisanship – wrongly, I might add – you do seem to have a black-and-white narrative with it’s heroes and villains to which you’ve become quite attached.

  I’d just like to see some evidence. What we have now is hearsay, and even the primary source is in a roundabout way admitting that.

  If you want to talk about my motives, and why I am taking a skeptical line on this story, I’d say the main reason is that the journalist driving it has no credibility with me. While I’ll admit I have been generally supportive of the current Mayor’s policies, I have no party affiliation.

• 16 Jack // Mar 31, 2010 at 3:00 pm

  I think the AGT interview is revealing on what happened at the Hall but not the smoking gun slam dunk that some would hope for.

  As for journalism – most reporters put the important lines at the top not bury them at the bottom.

  Ark was not treated well but the city obviously had reasons known to the in-camera meeting to get rid of him. Cost cutting?

  Both parties are not completely candid but since when has that ever occurred in politics.

  Now if we could only move on to the imporant issues holding up progress in BC

• 17 George // Mar 31, 2010 at 3:30 pm

  Jack
  ARK was treated like a criminal. Read the articles slowly and you might understand.
  This is important, the city hasn’t money left to start paying out insurance claims for injuries caused by City negligence. DUH
  I think you are so wrong, everyone seems to be really honest here except Penny and GREGOR.
  Admit it you drank the kool aid
  This is progress.

• 18 Richard // Mar 31, 2010 at 3:33 pm

  “Duress” is rather dramatic and over the top. He was represented by a lawyer and if he did not want to sign the letter and settle with the city, he always had the option of going to court so claiming the letter was signed under duress is rather ridiculous. So either there isn’t much to all of this or he got bad legal advice from his lawyer. It is not relevant who wrote the text of the letter. He put his signature to it which means he agreed that it correctly represented his views. In fact, people in positions of authority are always signing letters which they have not drafted.

  As he now has a consulting gig, which I suspect pays more than the city gig, it is hard to claim he signed the letter because he needed the money.

  Anyway, it is obvious that what is at worst a messy firing (as many firings are), is being used for political reasons by those with an axe to grind.

• 19 JP Ratelle // Mar 31, 2010 at 3:54 pm

  The Vision propaganda team has finally arrived.

  Richard, your assertion he wasn’t under duress is nonsense. Have you ever been fired after a 17 year career?

  Didn’t think so either.

  What political axe are you referring to?

  Nice vague reference but if you’re going to claim that, then back it up with who, what and where?

  Is frank Kurtz being political? Is he a member of any party? Has Ark said anything about this issue being Vision versus the NPA?

  The answer to all of those is NO.

  So come on big fella, lets be more clear and stop blowing the smoke you claim others are.

• 20 Jack // Mar 31, 2010 at 5:51 pm

  The axe grinders are from the NPA according to the Strait – do we believe Charlie

  Alex says this is about the safety of Vancouverites -do we believe him

  As I said earlier many mistakes have been made but in the end – is this watergate?

  What reporter will we be talking about in a decade when the teletypes keeping clicking on with more revelations at Cambie and 12th?

  The story has no legs – just in the blogs that need something to talk about to keep relevant.

• 21 Norm Farrell // Mar 31, 2010 at 9:05 pm

  Yeah, Jack. Mistakes were made. For example, Ballem admits that no inspectors were allowed on VANOC sites once security went in place. Inspections were not made by the City but every project was signed off. By whom? Not city inspectors, as one might expect.

  Ballem says that, had there been a problem reported to her, she would have arranged for an inspector to be cleared to enter the Olympic site. Who would have reported a problem to the City Manager. A contractor? A person from VANOC? Or, would they stay quiet and ignore problems they knew about, hoping for the best?

  Clearly, there was unusual treatment for Games venues. It is logical, particularly having heard anecdotal reports from tradespeople about poor quality work, to suppose that installations not inspected were more dangerous. Rushed temporary jobs are nearly always problematic.

  The City did not follow its own policies in the way Tssierev was told to run his department for Olympic sites nor did they follow policy in his dismissal. Nor were they truthful about the situation afterward. Not a time to be proud of Vision members. Pretty clear that some commenting here are trying to put lipstick on their pig.

• 22 A. G. Tsakumis // Mar 31, 2010 at 9:06 pm

  Don’t believe that Ballem made Tsisserev sign that Feb 12th letter?

  Allerton, not surprisingly, says this is “heresay”.

  What a complete joker.

  Okay kids, go back to my blog in an hour, for the PROOF that Witchypoo demanded that Tsisserev sign that letter and NOT because she was concerned about safety issues.

  The incredible lying by the City Manager and the Mayor, is only outdone by the excuse-mongering on this blog from commenters who usually are going at my throat, but seem to be, um, ah…

  …a little more sheepish.

  Gosh, I can’t imagine why….

  The truth hurts.

• 23 Richard // Mar 31, 2010 at 9:08 pm

  @JP
  duress
  noun
  threats, violence, constraints, or other action brought to bear on someone to do something against their will or better judgment: : confessions extracted under duress.
  • Law constraint illegally exercised to force someone to perform an act.

  Now just how was he under “duress” when he signed the letter with his lawyer present.

  Anyway, he is not a fresh faced kid just out of university. He was a senior manager at a large city with decades of experience. One would assume someone in this position would not sign a letter if he felt it was not correct especially when his lawyer was there.

• 24 Norm Farrell // Mar 31, 2010 at 9:23 pm

  BTW, it’s pretty clear that the city was applying financial pressure and threats of sanctions. None of us are so naive to imagine otherwise, if we are honest. The letter was carefully constructed and Tssiverev does not retract anything. He simply makes it difficult for city officials and their water carriers to extend the meaning of the letter more broadly, something they tried to do.

  I’m still waiting for Dr. Ballem to explain how she came to state that the electrical engineer was NOT given a bum’s rush into the parking lot and prohibited from talking his staff or returning during working hours. Whose version is correct on this Vision people?

• 25 Chris Keam // Mar 31, 2010 at 10:03 pm

  “I’m still waiting for Dr. Ballem to explain how she came to state that the electrical engineer was NOT given a bum’s rush into the parking lot and prohibited from talking his staff or returning during working hours.”

  I don’t have much interest in this topic because I’m sure the truth will out eventually, but I would comment that when someone is let go it’s not uncommon for there to be restrictions on communicating with other staff as you are filling up the dreaded cardboard box with your personal belongings and being escorted out.

  It’s not particularly enjoyable. It may not be respectful. But, it does protect both sides to some extent, especially if the person in question has access to sensitive materials or has the necessary passwords to shut down or cripple an IT network. Obviously this protects the employer, but it also protects the employee on the off chance something goes wrong for whatever reason, or more likely, the stress and emotion of the experience leads them to make a poor choice in terms of sending off that final good-bye email with information or comments that are inappropriate. Totally not suggesting those are concerns in this instance, but pointing out it’s often S.O.P. (to be monitored on your way out and denied communication with staff) in most organizations of any size.

• 26 Norm Farrell // Mar 31, 2010 at 10:39 pm

  @Chris Keam

  I don’t argue that it is common to protect vulnerable assets from theoretical risk. What is uncommon is for a manager to lie to the media about what happened.

  If a public official can casually toss out an untruthful statement, particularly when the fabrication is merely self-serving, I will mistrust other statements of that person.

• 27 Chris Keam // Mar 31, 2010 at 11:09 pm

  @Norm

  I’ve misconstrued your ‘remarks’ about the bum’s rush and inferred you were questioning the process as well as the ‘official’ story.

  cheers,
  CK

• 28 Chris Keam // Mar 31, 2010 at 11:13 pm

  And now I’ve put the single quotes around remarks instead of bum’s rush. Clearly time to step away from the computer.

• 29 Glissando Remmy // Apr 1, 2010 at 12:33 am

  Hello Ladies and Gentlemen,

  Winning is a lot of fun. We’ll end this week’s game with a new Double Jeopardy category:

  “Political henchmen and civil bullies”

  There you go:
  “She was Top Manager of this Western Canadian city, from 2008 until she was ousted from office in disgrace in 2010 for allegations of incompetence, staff intimidation, cronyism, lying, and misuse of public money.”
  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXGhvoekY44

  And the answer is…who is Cruella De Vil.

  We live in Vancouver and this keeps us busy.

• 30 A. G. Tsakumis // Apr 1, 2010 at 1:57 am

  Norman, stop, the excuse mongering from KEam is incessant and insidious. Don’t bother. He’s another social change activist looking to screw everyone else to hoist his cycling agenda. Pathetic.

  But I have a gift for all of you.

  Here’s a clip of spartikus, Keam and Dick being schooled by Kerry Jang in the fine art of, well…have a look…

  This one’s for you Glissy!

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ul3vRfw_1qE

• 31 Urbanismo // Apr 1, 2010 at 4:31 am

  Olympic Village: this came up last fall . . .

  Rumours abound: trades people are concerned for safety of on-site installations. Fears were temporarily allayed: consultants sign-off with Letters of Assurance.

  Stantec Architecture Ltd. and Stantec Consulting Ltd are consultants on Olympic village construction site.

  The city’s clerk of works (project manage) perfunctorily resigns for greener pastures.

  The city is heavily committed, financially, on Olympic Village.

  Vancouver’s chief electrical inspector relieved of his position, under controversial circumstances, now has a postion with Stantec Consulting Ltd

  Stantec Architecture Ltd. and Stantec Consulting Ltd are being sued by the city!

  IMO this story does have legs!

• 32 Mark Allerton // Apr 1, 2010 at 7:04 am

  Urbanismo: interesting point about Stantec, though as far as I can tell completely unrelated to Mr. Tsisserev’s line of expertise. http://www.journalofcommerce.com/article/id31803

  As for Alex’s big new reveal, once you get through the bilious prose, what it comes down to is that Penny Ballem said on TV that “the letter” was not part of the terms of AT’s settlement – but he has an e-mail from the assistant to AT’s lawyer that says (Alex’s emphasis included.)

  “As a *term of the settlement*, the City of Vancouver would like you to sign the attached letter.”

  All this really tells us is how AT’s lawyer’s assistant presented this to AT and not how the City presented it to AT’s lawyer. They might be one and the same (in which case PB lied on TV) but it’s quite plausible that they were not.

  Seriously though Alex, you need to stop writing your articles in the style of a 1960s James Bond villain. I can practically hear the sound of you stroking your white cat.

• 33 spartikus // Apr 1, 2010 at 8:08 am

  Here’s a clip of spartikus, Keam and Dick being schooled by Kerry Jang in the fine art of, well…have a look…

  Ah gee, Alex, at the very top of the thread I said I was going to bow out of this one. You’d think you wouldn’t poke a sleeping dog. Or is that a bear? Or a dog/bear that wants to sleep.

  But I guess when you point out that Alex Tsakumis failed to recognize a crucial piece of evidence of a key part of the story he’s been working on nearly exclusively for 2 months his circuits start to overload and he goes in to blind attack mode.

  Oh wait, he’s always in blind attack mode.

  Note, no one is actually saying the Tsisserev narrative isn’t the correct one, just that there are alternative explanations that are also worth considering. Undoubtedly, one will triumph. Or they both will. Sometimes life is grey.

  Anyway, enjoy your day and your long weekend!

• 34 Chris Keam // Apr 1, 2010 at 10:12 am

  Sad little attacks by a pathological bully. Just part of the fun here at francesbula.com. You can tell when you make a valid point. Alice B. Tsunami tries to silence you with off-topic rants containg more fiction than a Plentyoffish dating profile.

• 35 Morven // Apr 1, 2010 at 11:52 am

  We rely, as taxpayers, on the word of senior officials whether they be senior managers or senior officials.

  If they then go on and spill the guts of signed confidential agreements, then we are entitled to ask just what agreements they did not keep well before the Olympic venue issue arose (and who gave then the moral authority to decide on their own)

  But the bottom line is that the elected officials set the governance tone and we are entitled now to ask just what the elected officials think they are up to ?

  They have to wear this particular cloak.

  Please tell us poor taxpayers.

  -30-

• 36 MB // Apr 1, 2010 at 12:30 pm

  “Seriously though Alex, you need to stop writing your articles in the style of a 1960s James Bond villain. I can practically hear the sound of you stroking your white cat.”

  Or snapping those black-gloved Dr. Stangelove salutes.

  After “proof” supplied by AGT that a major crime against humanity was committed by the Evil Doctor and the Bully Mayor, Ark finally tells his own story:

  http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Former+Vancouver+chief+electrical+inspector+breaks+silence+over+Olympic+venues/2750127/story.html

  I have seen greater crimes committed in other municipal administrations, and middle + senior managers are let go (a rather polite term, wouldn’t you say?) from almost every city every year.

  But of course, they aren’t Vancouver, and they’re not busy enough.

• 37 Kam Lee // Apr 5, 2010 at 11:12 am

  AGT… all fluff and bluff. Big A, the election is over. Your people lost, get over it

• 38 Michelle S of Mt Pleasant // Mar 3, 2012 at 12:44 pm

  Does anyone else want to barf when they hear the words ‘Olympic Village’?

  Glissando Remmy @ 29

  “She was Top Manager of this Western Canadian city, from 2008 until she was ousted from office in disgrace in 2010 for allegations of incompetence, staff intimidation, cronyism, lying, and misuse of public money.”

  What! corrupt City employees in our City Hall, how can this be?!!! ………..do you feel the sarcasim oozing from my pores……

  Time to tighten up accountability in this City starting from the very top!