A lot of stories I’m hearing seem to be misreporting that the board voted to take all the revenue. That is certainly what was originally proposed and it may be the end result of the negotiation, but here is what the board actually voted on.
That the Park Board endorse in principle the key elements for the proposed
framework for a new partnership agreement as described on page 20 of this
report.
2. That staff be directed to continue the process and complete the negotiations
with all the community centres interested in moving to a new Partnership
Agreement based on (1.), and take any steps necessary to prepare for its
implementation, effective July 1 2013.
3. That staff initiate a consultation across the city, working with the Community
Centre Associations, to share with residents the framework and receive input
on:
• Priorities for moving ahead toward a more accessible and equitable network of
community centres
• Opportunities for the allocation of the new $1,000,000 annual fund made available to
the Park Board by the City commencing in the 2013 budget.
25
22 responses so far ↓
1 Terry M // Feb 11, 2013 at 5:16 pm
France’s, why do you force a “new Lol partnership” down the throats of this community centres when is not wanted? Nobody asked for it, it was not thought over by either city staff or park commissioners, WTF?
Vision’s conduct In this city sounds like “you first shoot and then … Consult or “negotiate” Give us a break!
2 I Camp // Feb 11, 2013 at 5:54 pm
Perhaps because the other agreement was old and out dated. Perhaps because this city is past going to the “ward system”, and that means we have to work together.
I am curious as to why the CCA’s (in some areas) are so resistant to this.
3 Stuart Mackinnon // Feb 11, 2013 at 5:56 pm
This issue actually pre-dates the Vision Board. The City has wanted this for many years. The Vision Park Board is simply the first to go along with the plan. The COPE and NPA Boards before them just said no to the bureaucracy. When I was elected staff presented this (and closing the Bloedel) as pretty much done deals. If the PB was going to survive etc. etc. it had to be done. This is completely staff driven and top down decision making. Ask any of the Vision Commissioners if they’ve ever sat on a Community Centre Board, or how many of them even attend regular monthly meetings of their ‘liaison centres’. Without first-hand knowledge of what CCs do and how they run, it isn’t possible to make an informed decision.
4 Mark Vulliamy // Feb 11, 2013 at 7:01 pm
As someone who has been on both sides of this divide (working in community centres for over 20 years and in Park Board management for 10+) and who has studied the history of our recreation system, I am following this issue with interest and trepidation.
Senior PB managers have never had much understanding or regard for the joint-operating relationship with associations. And now the institutional memory of the Board is shorter than it has ever been, with the longest serving Director in that position for just over five years. Furthermore, no current Commissioner has ever served on a community association Board, which provided in the past the training wheels of many Commissioners, Councillors and even MLAs. As a result, some important historical information has not surfaced in the debate on this issue.
First, it was community associations, and not the Park Board, which in the late 1940s put the first of Vancouver’s community centres on the ground. Strong support came from the Provincial Education ministry, the UBC School of Social Work and the Community Chest (later United Way). Park Board was only peripherally involved as the responsible agency for the land upon which the centres were built.
The assumption at the time was that the centres could be operated entirely on a cost-recovery basis. When it was realized, after the pioneer Centres opened, that they could not function on this basis, the first joint operating agreement was negotiated in 1950.
This original one-page JOA, which was later expanded, stipulated that “Park Board [would] control the overall policy governing the operation of the building.” This agreement came with a financial inducement: a revenue sharing arrangement whereby the association would pay $5000 towards the estimated $13,000 annual operating costs for each centre, and the Park Board would cover the balance.
Then as now the associations saw the terms imposed by Park Board as an assault upon their autonomy. There were serious conflicts over the purpose and priorities of the centres. The Board saw the centres primarily as a means to extend its summer playground program through the winter months. The associations had a more complex vision (though not by any means a consistently held one) including elements of art & culture, social work, town planning, community education and “better living in general.”
Park Board changed its legal name from the “Board of Parks” to the “Board of Parks and Recreation” in the mid 1950s, in large part because it had inherited responsibility for these new services.
After a few years the annual charge to the associations was dropped; the Board continued to cover the core costs and the associations were allow to retain all revenues generated through programming the centres. There was little incentive for the Board to collect and account for money from the associations when any surplus so generated would go to City general revenue.
That the community centre associations have stayed exceptionally prominent in community centre operation is in large part and ironically due to the quasi- independence of the Park Board (the only elected one in Canada). Nowhere else will you find non-profit groups able to generate and retain income from public recreation facilities, and with such extensive engagement in setting programming priorities. But this arrangement has fostered an exceptional capacity to respond to local community needs and preferences
Fast forward to current day. The Park Board’s independence from the City is now more quasi than ever before. As well, managers coming into the system from elsewhere are perplexed by how things are arranged in Vancouver. Not surprisingly, their impulse is to try to “normalize” the situation. This means greater centralization in order to achieve managerial control.
Before 60 plus years of evolution are tossed aside, the Board and its managers need to take a closer look at how the joint-operating arrangement came to be and, more critically, to understand the strengths and benefits of the “Vancouver way.” There is a lot of baby about to be tossed with the bathwater.
And there is considerable bathwater as well. The current JOA has been frozen in time since 1979. It needs badly to be updated and the Board will have to be forceful in making this happen, since reaching concensus with all associations is likely not possible. Above all, it will take a much deeper understanding of the merits and weaknesses of what is in place than what has been manifest to date. To do this process right is also going to take longer than the timeframe alloted in the PB motion.
5 Morven // Feb 11, 2013 at 7:25 pm
We should be grateful to Mark for his thoughtful comments (many of us know Mark from his days at the Parks Board).
It is really a shame that recent events have such a coercive aspect.
Few of us ordinary citizens fail to recognize that the nature of sports and recreation has changed. Few of us fail to recognize that the demographic characteristics of our communities are changing.
But most of us recognize, rationally or intuitively, that to effect strategic change solely on a pure fiscal basis, is not only wrong , it is hostile to what is a rare commodity in the modern world – a sense of community and identity.
Destroying a sense of community and identity without community consent (when there are other practicable options) is the antithesis of administration in the public interest.
It is simply politically indefensible.
-30-
6 Ian Robertson // Feb 11, 2013 at 8:33 pm
Very wise words spoken from Mark. We can all learn from his comments.
7 Jesse Johl // Feb 11, 2013 at 9:40 pm
Hi everyone,
I want to say thank you to the few hundred people who came out to the RPHCA public meeting to support all the community centres across the city.
Secondly, I would like to say thank you to Mark Vulliamy for putting that historical information out there for the masses. I had heard much of it from Stew Jordan, also a long time PB employee and friend of community centres.
Finally, I think it says a lot that COPE, NPA, Green and TEAM Park Board Commissioners all came out together against the proposed plan from city hall. Showing that this is not a partisan issue.
Jesse Johl
President RPHCA
Hillcrest Community Centre
8 Sandy Garossino // Feb 12, 2013 at 2:11 am
The informed historical perspective in the comments section on this issue have been very helpful and I’m sure many Vancouverites appreciate being able to find them here.
9 Everyman // Feb 12, 2013 at 8:23 am
Whatever one’s political affiliation, the Vision Parks Board seems to have handled this very badly. And coming on the heels of their council colleagues establishing a committee to better engage citizens, it is a PR disaster. Who will take that committee seriously now?
10 Silly Season // Feb 12, 2013 at 10:09 am
The communications lesson for today: don’t poop on volunteers, people who have been tied to their community centres, for years.
Most are not politically driven. By suggesting they are, you only make them angrier.
Yeah, I’m lookin’ at you, Commissioner Aaron Jasper.
11 teririch // Feb 12, 2013 at 11:24 am
And here we go folks, this tweet just out by Cllr Carr:
Adriane Carr @AdrianeCarr
Mayor said I can table my motion as new business but said City Mgr controls Council Agenda ie bureaucrats run Council. Wrong! #fb #vanpoli
12 Qinnafrina // Feb 12, 2013 at 11:49 am
Gerry Massing, President of the Dunbar CCA, and Vice-President of the Association Presidents’ Group, gave a very calm, well reasoned presentation at last week’s emergency Park Board meeting. In his presentation, he delineated a number of conerns with the recommendations presented to the commissioners by staff, which, in his opinion, signal a rigidity and inflecibility that are not consistent with negotiation.
To read the full text of his excellent presentation, go to http://www.dunbarcentre.org and click on “news’.
13 gman // Feb 12, 2013 at 4:12 pm
Speakers from last night can be seen here,
http://www.youtube.com/user/digitalmonkblog?feature=watch
14 Bill // Feb 12, 2013 at 4:58 pm
In reading the PB presentation to the Community Centers it is not at all clear exactly how they are going to achieve “equity” as they have defined it. On page 30 of the presentation they define equity as allocating revenue – program and tax generated combined – on a formula that recognizes population and “need”. In order to achieve this equity their calculations indicate they would have to reallocate $842,000 from Kerrisdale. They did not say how this could possibly be achieved since Kerrisdale is not generating an annual surplus of this magnitude. In fact, it is only possible to redistribute surpluses without having some impact on the services and programs at the contributing CC’s.
15 richmond // Feb 12, 2013 at 5:38 pm
@Bill. It may not be possible to redirect a surplus that does not exist, but you can cut programming that does not return a profit and reallocate that expenditure to other community centres. And this might be what many CCs are afraid of.
16 Terry M // Feb 12, 2013 at 6:39 pm
From one of my favorite writers on this blog :
“The “14% Elected” officials!
– People stood there, inside W E Community Centre for NINE hours
– 70+ people addressed the Park Board
– 95% advocated against voting on the Park Board proposal
– Intimidation tactics were used… either Ballem’s summoned city staff happily putting overtime at 1.5, or one of the Vision executive hacks, called the Vancouver Police to… “serve & protect” their asses from the “fury” of the overtired, abandoned, disappointed, group of seniors, some of them tattooed with …
H-E-L-L-O P-E-N-N-Y
… on their show-off iron pumped biceps… right?
– Then at 3.30AM they voted a Vision Vancouver 5-2 to carry on, and on and on …
Despicable.
Sarah Blah can write anything she wants.
Even poetry.
She’s finished politically, though I am not sure she ever understood what politics really are, or who was she supposed to serve and listen to, in the first place.”
I like this comment best.
However, there’s nothing funny when writing about the gang inside City Hall!
17 Mira // Feb 12, 2013 at 7:36 pm
What a mess!
Thank you, “no vision” Vancouver, “discounted” Penny, and “little” Gregor, Malcolm Bromley “in the middle”. A sick Spin City like sitcom that should have been cancelled and taken off the air after their first season. As for the park board chair, I agree, she is completely innocent, as well as she is incompetent and partisan. Need to say no more.
18 JamieLee // Feb 12, 2013 at 8:36 pm
I can’t believe that the Mayor is quoted in the Georgia Straight saying that Park Board is accountable to Council. I guess he believes that Council’s takeover of Park Board is now complete. Not so fast Mayor Robertson as citizens still have lots to say regarding this matter. I know those Community Centres who are in discussions with the Park Board General Manager mean well but what they must carefully consider is whether they are negoitiating away the Independence of our Parks and Recreation system.
19 brilliant // Feb 12, 2013 at 9:37 pm
@JamieLee 18-nobody’s ever accused Gregor of being keenly aware of the nuances of civic government. He has puppetmasters for that.
20 Norman // Feb 13, 2013 at 8:04 am
A new Partnership Agreement based on 1. What was 1?
21 Bill // Feb 13, 2013 at 9:06 am
@richmond #15
Agreed, but on page 24 of their presentation dealing with “rumours” that under the proposed plan “Programs and services will be reduced” the response is “Programs and services will be expanded”. This is clearly misleading and dishonest as it implies that existing programs and services won’t be touched and there will only be additions. The presentation presents their proposal as a win-win but clearly there has to be losers to achieve the equity model they are proposing.
22 thegeebee // Feb 23, 2013 at 12:27 pm
Could we hire Mr. Vulliamy to be the mediator/arbitrator for this dispute? Seems like the individual with the most knowledge of the history and has worked on both side of the divide.