Regional District defeats proposal to record directors’ votes
By Abigail Popple, Local Journalism Initiative Reporter, RMG
Directors of the Regional District of Fraser-Fort George voted 7-6 against adopting a bylaw that would require votes in opposition to be recorded in meeting minutes during last week’s board meeting.
Currently, whether a director votes “yes” or “no” on a motion is not noted in meeting minutes, unless a director asks for their opposition to be recorded. The proposed amendment would have required opposing votes to be recorded in the minutes by default.
Recording votes is fairly common practice: during the meeting, General Manager of Legislative and Corporate Services Maureen Connelly said over half of the 27 regional districts in B.C. record opposition by default according to their procedure bylaws. However, she did not examine the procedure bylaws of every district or how recently such bylaws were adopted, and noted that the practice is not universal.
“There are people around that want to single out individuals and go after them… It’s worse now than it’s ever been. I’m opposed to everybody having to say how they voted because of the way people take advantage of that. They don’t know the situation of why a person voted for or against, and then they make assumptions.”
– McBride Mayor Gene Runtz
A “bull’s-eye” on directors’ backs
Directors opposed to the amendment raised concerns over being unfairly singled out by members of the media and being reluctant to vote against the majority if their votes were on the record. Dannielle Alan, director for Electoral Area H, worried that recording votes may lead to more division among directors.
“It becomes us-against-them in who voted for and who voted against (a motion), and it seems to have given directors license if they voted against something and had that recorded, that they can speak against it even though it was a decision of the board,” she said. “I see that other boards do have more division. We seem to be a well-functioning board, and I’m not sure we have a problem that needs to be solved with this (amendment).”
She added that she has concerns about journalists singling out directors who vote against the majority on an issue.
“I find that the media tends to look for areas of division, so they will seek out the directors who voted against the norm and try to create, sometimes, an issue out of nothing,” she said.
Gene Runtz, director for the municipality of McBride, echoed Alan’s concerns.
“There are people around that want to single out individuals and go after them… It’s worse now than it’s ever been,” he said. “I’m opposed to everybody having to say how they voted because of the way people take advantage of that. They don’t know the situation of why a person voted for or against, and then they make assumptions.”
Valemount Director Owen Torgerson followed Runtz’s comments with the observation that the Village of Valemount allows councillors to have their opposition recorded if they request it, but opposition is not recorded by default. He said electoral area directors may be reluctant to vote against an issue if their opposition is recorded.
“This board is half municipal, half electoral area (directors)… Electoral area officials are often by themselves. When you force an opposition vote to be recorded, that can have a demoralizing impact on the electoral area when potentially media [are] seeking a story that isn’t there,” he said. “You might be getting called all day and all night to respond to a media request on why you voted ‘no.’”
In an email responding to The Goat’s request for comment, Torgerson said he worries electoral area representatives on the board may feel that they cannot vote “no” even if they want to, as this has previously caused problems for representatives.
“There have been past occurrences in other jurisdictions of a public citizen or group of people showing up at the private residence of a board director or municipal council member to contest the matter (after a ‘no’ vote),” Torgerson said.
Directors Joan Atkinson, who represents the District of Mackenzie, and Victor Mobley, representative for Electoral Area A, also had critiques the amendment.
“Elected officials have bull’s-eyes on their backs these days, unfortunately,” Atkinson said. “Once something has been voted (on), we all support it, that’s just the way it goes.”
Mobley said he typically asks for his opposing votes to be recorded, but is also concerned about the potentially isolating effect of having opposing votes recorded by default.
“I don’t believe I’ve ever had a vote that was not recorded when I voted negative,” he said. “However, I do struggle with forcing that vote on some of the regional district directors on certain issues.”
Mobley later voted in favour of the amendment.
“Facing public scrutiny, it’s not fun. It’s horrible. But I would not remove that at all, even if it was an option, because that’s the job I signed up for.”
– RDFFG Director Jerrilyn Kirk
“We need to let the people judge us”
Those in favour of the amendment said recording votes would improve transparency for their constituents.
Director Simon Yu, Mayor of Prince George and one of the city’s representatives on the Regional District board, said he has not had issues about his votes in city council meetings being recorded.
“I vote routinely against my council… once the decisions are made, we have no way to turn it back anyway,” he said. “In our democracy, we need to let the people judge us every which way they want. I think the division (of the board) is not going to be impacted.”
Director Cori Ramsay, another City of Prince George representative, was also in favour of the amendment.
“I’ve received a significant amount of feedback asking for vote transparency and asking how I voted on certain issues – for something that might seem routine, or certain applications. I don’t even have the ability to go back, unless I’ve recorded opposition, to see how I voted,” she said.
She added that she recently tried to see which directors voted against a motion that was defeated, but not everybody recorded their opposition in the meeting minutes.
“That really shed light on how providing this transparency is really important, at least to my constituents.”
Director Jerrilyn Kirk said while she’s faced heightened scrutiny over public votes in the past, she’s concerned about a lack of transparency with constituents.
“A lot of times, we do get pulled into polarization because it’s the rhetoric that the public and the media like to produce,” she said. “Regardless of that, I do still believe that transparency around how we vote and how we’re accountable to that vote is really important to reinforcing the trust of the public. How can they trust us if they don’t know what we’re doing?”
“I understand very, very well what that vote recording means,” she added. “Facing public scrutiny, it’s not fun. It’s horrible. But I would not remove that at all, even if it was an option, because that’s the job I signed up for.”
Kirk added that similar amendments were discussed in 2019 and 2023.
“I think this will be a continuous discussion until it’s implemented. At some point, this board is going to have to consider recording votes, whether it’s now or in the future,” she said.
