So you probably heard Vision Vancouver Coun. Tim Stevenson is going to Sochi, Russia in February to attend the 2014 Winter Olympics.
Stevenson, who is gay, will be in Sochi in place of Mayor Gregor Robertson as a symbolic gesture to protest the Russian government’s anti-gay propaganda law.
You also probably heard that NPA Coun. George Affleck questioned that Stevenson’s tab was going to be picked up by realtor Bob Rennie and developer Peter Wall.
Affleck was concerned the donations would be perceived by the public as a potential conflict-of-interest. Rennie and Wall, after all, have been generous in their campaign contributions to Vision over the years and their projects often need council approval.
Mayor Gregor Robertson took issue with Affleck’s accusations at a Dec. 18 council meeting and noted city manager Penny Ballem clearly concluded there was no conflict.
“I do have to say I’m extremely frustrated at how we went down into the depths of an unfortunate political debate around transparency,” Robertson said.
Affleck’s response: “It’s my right to ask tough questions. Today we’re talking about human rights. It’s my right to ask questions. That’s the job we have as councillors.”
In the end, Affleck and the rest of council unanimously agreed to have the City of Vancouver pick up the tab — a decision based on an amendment brought forward by Green Party Coun. Adriane Carr.
“Frankly, I’m just trying to protect you, Coun. Stevenson,” said Carr, who described herself as a “perception protector.”
Ah, perception…
There’s that word, again.
Let’s analyze that word, shall we, and put it into some context around Affleck’s concern. For the past decade, I’ve written reams of stories about the perception of Vision and the NPA collecting piles of dough from developers and unions.
The fact is, Rennie and Wall, have also given generously to the NPA, the very party that Affleck represents. It could be argued the reason Affleck and the rest of council get elected is because they belong to parties that receive millions of dollars of campaign money from developers, big business and unions.
In the 2011 election campaign, Vision spent $2.2 million and the NPA shelled out $2.5 million. Heck, COPE even spent $360,000, with most of that money courtesy of unions.
Independent candidates don’t have a chance under this party-with-the-most-money-gets-elected system. I know, I know — all three of the city’s mainstream parties say they want the provincial government to bring in spending limits, ban corporate and union donations, blah, blah, blah.
But that ain’t happening anytime soon.
So: If Affleck and others were truly worried about how the public perceives donations, then why the heck don’t they ever recuse themselves from voting when one of their campaign contributors goes before council?
That’s because, as Affleck and others from all parties have told me over the years, they don’t see themselves in a conflict because they say the millions of dollars in donations don’t influence their votes.
And who would doubt a politician.
Maybe it's just me, but doesn't it seems a little odd for Affleck to be going on about a perceived conflict over a trip to Russia when a much bigger conflict is arguably the millions of dollars parties receive from developers, big business and unions to get them elected?
Just asking the tough questions.
As for transparency, which is a term both parties like to throw around, it sure would be nice to know which developers and unions have given money to the NPA and Vision since the 2011 election.
But the law, ladies and gents, says those parties don’t have to disclose that. Can’t imagine what the public perception would be if they did.
twitter.com/Howellings
