People keep sending me this change to the Riley Park community centre bylaws, which I note, among other things, will require anyone elected to the board to be approved by the other directors. Not sure how that will work.
Anyway, lots of buzz about this.
23 responses so far ↓
1 And then there is this // Apr 7, 2014 at 11:20 pm
Park Board Commissioners and staff, I wasn’t sure to whom I should address this so everyone gets a copy. Please can someone help out on this? The current board wants to change the by-laws so they can
hold meetings wherever they want. Whistler? A downtown pub? How about the community centre? It appears that they want the directors to vet anyone wanting to run for the board.
The current board president has not listed his physical address nor his mailing address, as required by the Society Act. A PO box does not suffice for the address of a Board member.
There was a ‘special membership’ meeting scheduled for April 3rd, but cancelled at the last minute. It has been rescheduled for April the 17th from 4 to 5 pm at the Lawn Bowling club…this is the Thursday before
the long weekend. I do not believe that AGMs, which is what it is now being called, are usually held for one hour in the late afternoon. There aren’t any notices in the community centre concerning this meeting and it
is difficult to find it on the web site. This behaviour appears to be consistent with the proposed Association by-law modifications (see second attachment below) which will make it more difficult for community members to participate in the Association’s affairs.
A friend of mine signed for her Riley Park Hillcrest membership on line and she told me her credit card was charged to Way to Give. When this was looked at on line it gives Jesse Johl’s name as the president.
http://donate2charities.ca/en/Way.to.Give.Foundation._.0_806472601RR0001
2 And this // Apr 7, 2014 at 11:25 pm
“I know some of you have been involved with the Association in the past and some of you may be new to it. I want to ask for your support at this crucial time.
I was invited to run for the board by xxx xxx (who is a great community supporter) a few years ago when she left the board. Since then the board has focussed only on the litigation against the city and not much else. While I’m not against the legal actions, its a means to an end: I’ve always been more interested in providing the best programs for our community. To be honest, I have been disillusioned by this board because of their legal-only focus and recent events have made me take a stand and fight for our community.
Jesse Johl, the current president, has tried to remove board members who stand up for this community and has created a [removed for legal reasons] board that’s funnelled monies to organizations that are run by him and his friends. In addition to the $75k he’s already spent on legal fees by appointing friends as directors, he has done barely anything for the programs in the community centre. In fact he’s made it worse by souring the relationship with the staff at the centre. The association monies are for our community and we’re losing thousands of dollars every year due to this board. There was a huge split on the board earlier this year when he tried to force the board to spend 300k of this money without a solid business plan. (You won’t know any of this because the board doesn’t publish meeting minutes, actions and the budget online as is required by the bylaws on their website http://www.hillcrestcentre.ca.)
There’s a group of board members who want to represent this community and I know we will be able to get our community association back if we can even get a small amount of support – but we have to act soon. Please support us by getting a membership to the community association by this thursday and voting at the AGM – that’s all that’s needed. You can get a membership from the front desk at the rec centre or online at http://www.hillcrestcentre.ca. Let’s make sure our families can enjoy the great work that we’ve seen in the old rec centre….”
Riley Park Hillcrest Community Assocation
http://www.hillcrestcentre.ca
3 Richard // Apr 7, 2014 at 11:52 pm
Really Riley?
4 Pete Quily // Apr 8, 2014 at 1:53 am
This is crazy. Even Rob Ford during one of his drunken stupors or crack binges wouldn’t do something as stupid as this. And stupidity is his brand.
The Hillcrest/Riley Park community centre directors essentially want to appoint themselves rulers for life.
Like in some 3rd world dictatorship. In an amendment at the AGM April 17th. I hope many reporters & bloggers show up. And members.
From Frances’s file
http://www.francesbula.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/RILEYPARKAMENDMENTS.pdf
“At a General Meeting April 17th, 2014, at 4pm at the Pacific Indoor Bowling Club located at 4588 Clancy Loranger Way,
Vancouver, BC”
“B. Content of the Amendments
The amendments address issues including the following:
1. Eligibility to be a director
d. A new director must be approved by a majority of the current
Board of Directors”
So they’re removing the ability of members to democratically vote for directors.
They want appoint themselves rulers for life. And if one of them dies or wants to quit there is no democratic election.
Only a rigged election that would make russian dictator vladimir putin proud.
The majority of the board will chose who is allowed to run as a director or who will not.
Do you think they’ll chose someone who will think differently then them? Someone who might ask questions they don’t want answered or examined?
We live in a democracy. The members of The Hillcrest/Riley Park community centre should decide who is a director. Not the board. Why?
Why would the board members of The Hillcrest/Riley Park community centre do this anti democratic, massively stupid and insulting amendment?
Is there something they’ve done they are trying to hide or cover up?
More than one thing? Other reason?
5 Kirk // Apr 8, 2014 at 8:24 am
LOL! This is insane! Gee, if this rule works here, maybe they can add jt to Bill C-23!
The worst part isn’t the rule itself. No, it’s that the current board members think this is okay — it reveals the kind of people who are currently running the place. If none of them thought there was a problem with this, then they all need to step down because they’re obviously incompetent.
6 Norman // Apr 8, 2014 at 9:52 am
Who do they think they are? VanCity Credit Union?
7 Kenji // Apr 8, 2014 at 9:59 am
…but…but… only Vision is corrupt!
8 Brenton // Apr 8, 2014 at 10:25 am
This is absolutely ridiculous and likely illegal. Does anyone know what body regulates provincial societies that could deem this illegal?
9 Richard // Apr 8, 2014 at 10:27 am
Looks like it was drafted by the same people who wrote the “Fair” Elections Act.
10 Jak King // Apr 8, 2014 at 11:02 am
Hard to believe these proposed amendments would be acceptable to anyone in an open and democratic society. What the heck are the thinking?
11 Bill Lee // Apr 8, 2014 at 11:31 am
This is much like the VanCity Credit Union, and this year the MEC (Mountain Equipment Co-op), board elections with ‘vetted’ recommended candidates = board validating themselves for life.
As less than 2 percent of possible members vote, the recumbent board gets their way.
Something that the Provincial Government should look into and reform the voting laws.
12 Mark Allerton // Apr 8, 2014 at 1:28 pm
(Kind of tying this thread to the next one…)
I was half expecting to see Jesse Johl turn up on the NPA slate this year, having gained such a high profile in the community centres kerfuffle. But based on this perhaps he is happy being Benevolent Dictator For Life at Hillcrest.
13 westygrrl // Apr 8, 2014 at 1:40 pm
It is worth noting some history. At the 2011 Riley Park CC AGM, an organized group of politically motivated folks led a strategic campaign to replace three candidates running for re-election (two of whom had sat on the Board for 10+ years), and fill the remaining vacancies with their agreed-upon candidates. They stacked the room, won the vote, and gained control of the Board for their cause/purposes. Some of those players remain involved in the current organization, including Mr. Johl.
The governance issues at play currently (which I would think would fall under the provincial Society’s Act), are worrisome to anyone who cares about this topic. Given the recent issues surrounding Board governance (i.e. PHS) & non-profit operations, all of us should be concerned.
14 Kenji // Apr 8, 2014 at 3:19 pm
Westygrrl, why would someone stack the room to get control of a community group? I had assumed that these were not paid positions – maybe they would get a modest honorarium to cover the cost of sandwiches at a meeting or something – but otherwise not. I was on the board of a nonprofit and did it because it was interesting and useful. I didn’t get a cent and never thought I would.
Is this, like, a job?
15 westygrrl // Apr 8, 2014 at 5:44 pm
No Kenji, it is not a job, and there is no honorarium nor expectation of one. These organizations were created in the early days by passionate community residents/volunteers to fund & build centers (post-war), and then work with Park Board staff to program and run them. The issue of centre governance (and funding) has been well-covered by Frances.
At their heart, they are community-based, volunteer-run organizations, that work in partnership with community centre staff in the programming of the the centre. They have/do also work with the Park Board administration, though that relationship has become fraught.
As to the why: Politicization of an otherwise nonpartisan, non-profit community organization, for narrow, specific, and partisan goals/objectives OR fighting the good fight? It depends on which side of the fence you’re sitting.
16 Raymond Tomlin // Apr 9, 2014 at 2:49 am
Jesse Johl has proven himself to be a fool; clearly, he can say goodbye to any prospective bid for a seat on Vancouver City Council with his proposed anti-democratic governance document (and, by the way, the NPA wouldn’t touch Jesse with a 10 foot pole). Directors must sign a non-disclosure agreement? Really? Seems that open, transparent, responsible government is a foreign concept to Jesse and his seemingly neo-crypto-fascist followers / fellow Board members. Yikes!
17 Mark Allerton // Apr 9, 2014 at 12:37 pm
I’d quite forgotten that Johl was acclaimed as an NPA council candidate early in the 2011 campaign and then got himself fired for doing a vanishing act.
http://www.francesbula.com/uncategorized/npa-drops-acclaimed-candidate-some-bow-out-but-others-revving-up-to-run/
18 GregorsGreenBk // Apr 9, 2014 at 8:29 pm
And then there is this..,
Address 800 – 1040 West Georgia is Davison Law Group which represents the 6 community associations vs Vancouver Park Board and City.
Don’t know societies act well enough if address of law firm holding dollars in trust is acceptable disclosure.
19 Dan Cooper // Apr 13, 2014 at 3:36 am
Looks pretty bad indeed! It reminds me of the way REI coop in the US had its “elections.” The old board proposed a new board, and you could either vote for that slate or…no one. There were no alternatives, and no write-ins allowed. Don’t know if it still works that way. At least Van City, Coast Capital and the like let other people get on the ballot…though making sure they have absolutely no chance at actual election. (As I remember in Van City’s case, at least last time around, no one running was even allowed to say what they proposed to do if elected, where they stood on issues people were bringing up, or how they felt about the election system itself; personality and affiliation politics were the only allowable criteria for campaigning. This is why I don’t keep my money there…)
20 waltyss // Apr 13, 2014 at 5:52 pm
Mr. Cooper @ 19. You are right about REI, and that system remains. You can vote for a candidate or withhold your vote by marking withhold.
With regard to Vancity, you are wrong, and I say this as one of the few people in this town who is not a member.
Even when I was a member, candidates were free tp put out a platform. Currently, there is an election going on and each candidate has a written statement and in many cases a video. In addition, many have put up websites referenced on their statement where they can expand. While this is wider than it was, I have no recollection of it being the way you suggest.
In the past, there was a slate recommended by the Board, which was to say the majority of the Board. During this election, there are 5 candidates recommended for 3 positions. They say the criteria are whether someone is qualified and also that FICOM, the regulator, who instructed them to recommend. Clearly only 3/5 at most can win. This however is in the context of credit union boards having to take on much more difficult positions at the direction of the provincial regulator. Certainly, in an era of low turnout where a protest candidate can easily win, there has arisen greater pressure to vet the candidates to ensure some basic qualifications, and not just with credit unions. I tend to think the process being chosen is anti-democratic but that is just me.
I don’t keep my money at Vancity either but your comments about their governance system are wrong.
In the case of a community centre, there are not the same sophisticated demands and it is completely anti-democratic to require board approval for candidates.
21 jenables // Apr 13, 2014 at 10:37 pm
Walt, by your own logic, they are free to advertise and point these things out. So why STAR candidates on a ballot? How on earth is that okay? It would be more democratic to only allow qualified individuals to run in the first place- provided they were vetted by an impartial regulator, examining ONLY credentials. Unfortunately FICOM is anything but. And yes i recall in 2012 (I’ll have to look up 2013) candidates and the board itself was very restricted in what they could say under threat of disqualification. To the topic at hand, i believe any actions like this should bring intense public scrutiny, for it seems people taking absolute power rarely use it for the common good. Funny, isn’t it?
22 Mark Vulliamy // Apr 14, 2014 at 9:31 am
The proposed by-law changes at Riley Hillcrest are ethically and (I hope) legally wrong. I say this as a longtime supporter of the joint-operating model unique to Vancouver and its community centres. Without getting drawn into the discussion of parallels with VanCity, REI, etc. the difference here is that the Association is a co-custodian of a publicly owned and funded facility. It is not the role of the extant (and marginally legitimate) board of directors to determine who of the membership they deem qualified to stand for office. The amendments should be condemned broadly, including by other community centre associations.
If the City and the Park Board need any further justification to assume unilateral control of community centres, it is provided by this attempt at a power grab.
23 And this // Apr 15, 2014 at 7:48 am
The problem is, is that this is not the only c centre bod with sketchy practices . That’s why it’s nessisary to tighten up the ship with a new JOA . It’s great to have independent boards but if they are using public funds they need to be transparent with how exactly those funds are spent.