Cheapest civic election campaign in years

As the candidates’ financial reports continue to trickle in for last November’s civic election, it’s becoming obvious this will likely go down as the cheapest campaign — if not in history — then certainly in the last decade or so.

That’s especially so for the mayoral race. With two of the four candidates having filed their expense breakdowns, the total so far is less than half what a single candidate would normal rack up.

Peter Milobar’s bottom line comes to $13,943 compared to $26,622 in 2008. Gordon Chow spent $817, all coming from his own pocket. With Dieter Dudy and Brian Alexander still to file — they have until March 19 — the total could rise by another $12,000 of so, but it will still come in at a modest number.

There’s a similar trend in the race for council seats. In 2008, council candidates put out an average of $4,100 for their campaigns. In 2011, the average so far is $2,985.

An incumbent will often spend around $4,000 to $6,000 (Nancy Bepple spent $5,449 and $6,930 in 2011 and 2008 respectively) but there are exceptions. Tina Lange’s campaign cost her $1,800 in November, compared to $736 the previous election. That’s the benefit of name recognition.

Why the tight wallets? Some people would argue that’s not such a bad thing — lower spending means more chance for unknowns, and less campaign advertising cluttering up our mailboxes and streetscapes.

The reason, though, probably has something to do with expectations. The mayoral race wasn’t even supposed to happen, for one thing. When it did happen, it was slow to start, building momentum only in the last two weeks of the campaign.

There simply wasn’t a lot of motivation to build big war chests.

On the council side, there were plenty of candidates representing some high-profile issues, but the parkade fiasco had sputtered out, Ajax was on hold as a hot-button topic, and there were no big spending projects.

As interesting as how candidates spend their money, is where it comes from. There, too, there’s evidence of a lack of urgency.

Milobar (the only real example we have of the mayoral candidates so far), got much of his support from land developers and related businesses.

AT&T gave him $5,000 in 2008 but only $1,000 in 2011. Likewise for the Sandman Hotel and Quinn Developments Inc. Chances Gaming/ 7779 Ventures anted up $2,500, half what it gave the previous election.

Other significant contributors in 2011 include Plainsman, Mibroc Developments, DW Builders and Kamloops Home Hardware, Even the Kamloops Blazers handed in a cheque for $500.

But names like B.C. Wilderness Tours, Culos Development and Kamloops Square Management that were there in 2008 are missing in 2011.

All of which suggests that, based on incumbency and expectations, campaign fundraisers probably weren’t working the phones and luncheons as much as the previous election.

By the way, there’s a widespread assumption that candidates somehow become beholden to those who give them major campaign contributions.

Experience, law and logic suggests otherwise. For a politician to be in a conflict of interest, there must be direct benefit to him or her for voting in a certain way.

While there have been conflict allegations in other cities, I’ve never known of a successful local candidate to vote according to who contributed a few dollars or even a few thousand to his or her campaign.

It’s just not worth it.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

A fly on the wall reports in from the 28th floor

The week in review, sort of:

A TOURIST IN KAMLOOPS: The events presaging federal environment minister Peter Kent’s après-visit proclamation on the Ajax mine this week — the City council vote last October to ask for a federal panel review, the initial opposition to it by both the mayor and MP, the TNRD’s support of council, the Dec. 1 delegation to see Kent in Ottawa — are familiar to readers.

It is entirely possible, just as it’s possible there’s life on other planets, that after the delegation trudged up the snowy steps to the Environment Canada offices in Gatineau across the river from Parliament Hill two months ago, there was a serious, productive discussion about the possibility of a federal panel review on Ajax.

Senator Nancy Greene-Raine was there, too; so was TNRD director Ronaye Elliot and environment staffers.

“Mr. Minister,” the MP and mayor might have said, settling into the comfortable chairs in Kent’s offices on the 28^th floor overlooking the Ottawa River, “though we don’t think much of the idea ourselves, we are here to urge you on behalf of Kamloops to give proper consideration to a federal panel review on this highly divisive issue.

”Please pay no mind to our previously stated opinions on the matter, nor to the fact that your provincial counterpart Terry Lake is against it. And please set aside, for the time being, your own public comments that you see no need for it.”

“Ms. McLeod, Mr. Mayor,” Kent might have replied, “I will keep an open mind, pay a visit to Kamloops at the first opportunity, go on a walkabout, talk to the locals, and only then make a decision.”

And, in due course, Kent flew into town this week, looked, talked, and on the verge of boarding his plane, experienced clarity — he could not in good conscience order the panel review supported by City council, all regional district directors, and several environment groups and affected land owners.

It’s possible.

MOTHER CORP LIVES: Some reassurance on the question of whether CBC really will set up a studio and do live programming in Kamloops arrived in my in-box this week.

A week ago, you will remember, CBC’s B.C. director of programming Lorna Haeber expressed confidence everything remains on track for spring despite the hullaballoo about the feds being anxious to do some slashing and burning on the public broadcaster’s inflated budget.

She acknowledged that a site in the downtown core has been selected (a topic of some speculation hereabouts as to its exact address) and a producer has been hired, but she couldn’t confirm details of where or who.

Well, we can confirm that the producer is Rob Polson and that the announcement of his hiring was made internally last month, in CBC Vancouver’s own newsletter. It came under “staffing announcements” and reveals this:

“Rob Polson has accepted the position of producer of the new CBC Radio morning show that will launch next spring in Kamloops. This is the first hire for the new bureau, and Rob’s experience will lead what will eventually be a four-person team.… Rob worked as a news anchor and producer at CFJC in Kamloops back in the ‘80s (sic; it was the ‘90s). Rob will begin his new job in February or March of next year….”

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

We’re asking the wrong questions about Ajax

Enviro minister Peter Kent and MP Cathy McLeod. (Daily News photo)

Armchair Mayor column, The Kamloops Daily News, Sept. 26, 2012.

Federal environment minister Peter Kent came, he saw and he went yesterday.

He met with local groups, toured the Ajax minesite and some of the surrounding area, and boarded his airplane.

In due course, he announced that he found and heard nothing during his day in Kamloops to change his mind about ordering a federal panel review, and so it will all be left to the federal-provincial process favoured by B.C. Environment Minister Terry Lake.

MP Cathy McLeod, who didn’t want a panel review, then did, is now fine without one. While in her “give us a panel review” mode awhile back, she stated two reasons one is needed: “clear federal jurisdiction coupled with significant public concern for a panel process.”

“Public concern” is undeniable. Anybody who claims not to have an opinion has been on an extended trip to the moon or is afraid to express it.

The debate over Ajax centres on jobs versus the environment, with a dash of Aberdeen lifestyle thrown in. If the ultimate decision on Ajax is to be made on that basis, jobs will win easily.

During last year’s civic election campaign, I asked candidates to define what they meant by lines like “getting all the facts” and “we must wait for the environmental review.”

Some of them did — almost none was elected. I would ask the same question now of those at either end of the debate: where do you draw the line?

Because I’m about as sure as eggs is eggs that all those fancy environmental reports will confirm what we already know — that we’ll lose a lake, a big patch of grassland and some wildlife. And they’ll say health worries can be alleviated.

And that those who support the mine will conclude that, alrighty then, there are, by official count, three million lakes in Canada and we’ll do fine with 2,999,999.

And that we can afford to lose a few endangered badgers, toads and sapsuckers that rely on the Ajax site for their existence.

After all, we are going to get jobs and taxes and royalties.

The other side of the argument will say we simply can’t sell out even a bit of our cherished environment for the sake of a few more paycheques.

And nothing will change. All the graphs, charts, photos, drawings, plans, wind studies, dust studies, noise studies, hydro studies and pamphlets in the world will change nothing about “public concern.”

One side will win; one will lose.

But is it possible, in our focus on studies and processes, that we’re asking the wrong question?

Because, does it not, all come down to the fact that this mine is going to be within two kilometres from town as the crow flies, not 10 or 20 kilometres out in the forest?

I think it does. I think it’s about whether a mine on our back step is the vision we have for Kamloops. Whether that fits with who we are, what we do, what we want our city to look like for the rest of our lives and the lives of our children and grandchildren.

Some will say yes, some no. But let’s get over all this angst about noise and dust and rare turtles and $30-an-hour jobs and talk about how we see our city.

That’s what Peter Kent should be thinking about, too.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

Cavers has right to express his opinions

Armchair Mayor column published in The Kamloops Daily News, Jan. 24, 2012.

In his very first column for The Daily News, Coun. Donovan Cavers has managed to stir up a pretty big nest of hornets.

Cavers is one of several City councillors who will take a turn at writing for us in our Monday editions, and he kicked things off yesterday with a few swings at Ajax — and he pulled no punches.

Basically, he told KGHM to stay in Poland and its partner Abacus to stay out of town.

“And so I say to mine proponent spokesperson Jim Whittaker, ‘Drive safely as you return to your home as the Coquihalla is icy. But please, I’d rather you didn’t return to our community,’” Cavers summed up.

Which brought some swift reaction by phone and on our website. One caller said Cavers’ criticism of the project’s ownership amounts to being “against Polish people.”

Another caller suggested, “the Kamloops Daily News should be ashamed for running it.”

On the web, a reader wrote, “Shame on The Daily News, shame on Mel Rothenburger, and shame on Donovan Cavers.”

“Wow! This tripe from a sitting councillor,” wrote another. “Who voted for this guy?”

“Stick to your day job Donovan,” advised yet another. “You may not be a great councillor, but you are definitely an awful writer. The mayor should be disappointed in himself for giving you permission to write this drivel.”

“This is so juvenile,” concluded another.

It should surprise no one that Cavers opposes the mine project; he made that clear during the election campaign. What’s surprising is the vehemence of the reaction.

An Ajax proponent could take any one of his list of reasons opposing the mine and refute it with the opposite opinion. Because that’s what it is, opinion.

(Cavers acknowledges to having been corrected yesterday on one of his points, the one in which he says that “no mine this size has EVER been excavated in Canada within 10 kilometers of a municipality’s outer limits.” He should have inserted a reference to “healthy community,” he says.)

Other points made by Cavers — such as the abortive plan by Ajax officials to meet privately with candidates during November’s civic election, aren’t new. Some people thought that would have been beneficial to the candidates, some didn’t.

If anything else is surprising about Cavers’ debut, it’s that he used such plain language in stating his case. Politicians who write columns for newspapers tend toward being diplomatic for fear of losing votes the next time they stand for re-election. An argument can be made that candor isn’t an entirely bad attribute for a politician.

Will other councilors do likewise? Maybe, or not — the purpose of inviting members of council to write columns for us is to provide information on the workings of City Hall, as well as to express opinions on matters of interest.

In Cavers’ case, he went for it, but the point is, he was providing his own views and those views are open to being refuted by anyone who wishes to do so.

The invitation to councillors wasn’t restricted to expressing opinions that agree with mine or yours, or to topics we deem worthy.

Cavers offered his honestly held opinion. And he certainly got everyone’s attention.

Performing arts centre faces two big hurdles

Pianist Dale Rasmussen performs at the gala for the arts.

Armchair Mayor column published in the Kamloops Daily News Jan. 21, 2012.

One of the big topics of dinner conversation at the Kamloops Convention Centre tonight promises to be the idea of a new performing arts centre. It would be pretty hard to avoid it — the Big Three arts groups are hosting the fifth annual Mayor’s Gala for the Arts.

Two of those three, namely the Kamloops Symphony Orchestra and Western Canada Theatre, are pivotal to hopes for a new centre. With the symphony now on board, it would seem the vision has some legs.

Yet, Western Canada Theatre’s support remains, outwardly at least, tepid. As much as a new theatre would be a nice thing, there’s that niggling matter of the Sagebrush Theatre. Board members worry about what will happen to the Sagebrush if a new centre is built.

Which leaves the best chance for success the construction of a new centre without WTC. The symphony and other groups could enjoy the new centre, leaving WCT hunkered in the old Sagebrush.

That would also solve one design challenge — trying to build a theatre (more likely two theatres, one with about 1,200 seats and another with 300 or so) that works well both for orchestral music and for drama. The acoustics needed for each are so different that any facility accommodating both uses must necessarily compromise with something that’s second best.

A second issue (aside from money) promises to be just as contentious as who will partner. There’s a bias at City Hall, shared by the symphony, in favour of building a new centre in the downtown area as part of a “cultural district.”

It’s a concept that confuses the walk-in attraction of an artsy-fartsy shops-and-boutiques zone with drive-to facilities.

We can do without more traffic in the downtown core, but there’s no inherent value to collecting major arts facilities in one neighbourhood anyway. And land, of course, is scarce downtown.

An exciting possibility exists just across the river at the north end of the bridge. The Henry Grube site has plenty of land for what could be an award-winning design looking out onto the confluence of the North and South Thompson Rivers. It’s an architect’s dream, with lots of room for parking to boot.

Think Sydney Opera House. One can imagine the Kamloops Centre for the Arts (or Meeting of the Waters Centre for the Arts) imposing itself on the views of the thousands who cross the bridge each day, a postcard structure that would become the very symbol of Kamloops.

Imagine it as you look across from Riverside Park, or from the upper reaches of the South Shore.

Just as there’s no good reason arts facilities should be clustered to the benefit of one part of town, there’s no reason at all that the North Shore should be excluded. What a glorious statement of unity it would be.

And, it’s completely doable. The land can be transferred, and most of what Henry Grube is currently used for could be accommodated in a new centre that focuses on music but is designed for other pursuits as well.

There are lots of reasons to say no to something, but this is one with lots of reasons to say yes.

If we’re going to talk about a vision for a new performing arts centre, then let’s get some real vision going, instead of limiting the discussion to old assumptions about partners and locations.

Strange strategies out at the TNRD get-away

Armchair Mayor column published in the Kamloops Daily News, Jan. 19, 2012

The South Thompson Inn and Conference Centre out by Rivershore golf course will be a busy place for the next couple of days. A baker’s two dozen board members and a phalanx of support staff gather at the inn for coffee and muffins this morning, followed with some regular business and then the start of strategic planning sessions.

The South Thompson Inn is a nice guest ranch but it’s not luxurious — a good choice for the board to get out of the office.

There’s nothing wrong with City councils and regional boards leaving the familiar surroundings of their chambers or boardrooms to strategize elsewhere. To the contrary, it’s a smart thing to do.

Being in a different room sitting in different chairs, looking at different walls, raises attention and energy levels. Enthusiasm is more sustainable.

And if you’re going to sit in a meeting, with the same people, for two days, it helps to be comfortable.  No argument with that.

The bonus of getting away is that there are fewer interruptions from those back at work — turn off the cell phone and catch up on calls during the breaks, but nobody’s going to be knocking on the door with an “urgent” message that just has to be taken care of pronto.

The problem with many of these taxpayer-funded getaways in the past was that they got too far away. It’s not necessary to go outside the home community to a beach or hilltop resort — down the street or around the corner is far enough.

So, the extra $1,500 the TNRD will spend to strategize away from the downtown Civic Building this time is well worth it.

But here’s where I must pause to sort through my broken record collection and pull out an old classical tune labelled — “Please Let Me In.”

Civic politicians hate being asked why strategic planning meetings are always held behind closed doors. It’s perfectly legal to do so, but indefensible.

TNRD administrator Sukh Gill offers a very clear, logical-sounding, and ridiculous explanation of why the regional board will meet in secret.

Gill says board and staff want to discuss things without worry about violating the land-legal-labour rule — that’s the stuff they are bound by law to discuss in camera. “We end up discussing possible personality matters, land matters or new services,” he says.

Well, of course they wouldn’t want to talk about land purchases, legal advice, or labour contracts in the open. So, why not divide the strategic planning meetings into public and in-camera sessions, exactly the way boards and councils do with every regular business meeting?

The real reason these things aren’t open is that the politicians just don’t want them to be — the forthright explanation is their insistence that they want an opportunity to talk privately without the public present so they needn’t worry about sounding dumb.

When Kamloops council goes off to its own strategic planning session in another week, it will be by invitation-only just like the TNRD’s. Yet, several council members have proclaimed that “public engagement” is at the top of their priority list for the strategy meetings.

In other words, they want to talk, in secret, about how open they want to be. And they want to talk about their vision for Kamloops without anyone listening in.

A strange way to encourage “public engagement.”

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

Liberals give Tories 30 more years in Kamloops

I can’t help but think that, if ever the federal Liberals hoped to win back the Kamloops riding they lost 33 years ago, they’ve pretty much guaranteed themselves third-party status hereabouts for another three decades.

That’s a lot of threes, but while three is a powerful number in sports, religion and superstition, it’s a bad omen out for the Grits.

The party wound up its national convention on the weekend with at least another trio of desperate new policies guaranteed to keep Kamloops and other traditionally conservative ridings re-electing the Tories.

Let’s begin with marijuana. At the urging of the party’s youth wing, the Liberals are now in favour of legalizing the weed.

In a strange interpretation of democracy, the party’s rules make it unnecessary for the party or the leader to heed the wishes of the convention, but no matter — like it or not, the Liberals will now be known as the party that wants to legalize marijuana.

“If you want to be part of a group of free-thinking, innovative, thoughtful, pragmatic, hopeful, positive, happy people, come and join the Liberal party,” declared interim leader Bob Rae. “And after the resolution on marijuana today, it’s going to be a group of even happier people in the Liberal party.”

Well said.

The party has thus departed its traditional middle ground, going beyond, even, anything the NDP has contemplated on the matter. Gone is the concept of decriminalization — pot would become legal for general sale, presumably under regulations similar to those for the merchandizing of alcohol.

The rationale for this is that the war on drugs has been a failure, as if anyone ever expected to actually win that war. We haven’t won the war on prostitution, nor on poverty, nor on the eradication of disease, yet we valiantly continue to do battle on those fronts with the hope and expectation that we can at least somehow manage them.

But, under the logic of the Liberals, it’s all or nothing.

How will this play in Kamloops? This is the city in which the cops raided a so-called “compassion club” set up to ensure medical marijuana was available to those who had a permit to use it, dragging its proprietor off to spend a night in jail.

This is a riding whose MP says, “Marijuana, whether you’re talking about the effects, the toxicity in terms of the human body are incredible. To legalize a substance that is incredibly toxic and is going to create a huge impact on our health-care system cost doesn’t really make sense.”

And, by the way, this is a place that has expressed no audible interest in establishing a supervised injection site for heroin addicts. In other words, this is not harm-reduction territory.

Rather, for the past dozen years, Kamloops has been represented in Ottawa by a party that wants to strengthen sanctions against marijuana users, build more jails, and give more people guns.

Oh, and the other two pieces of baggage the Liberals grabbed hold of on the weekend? How about the old preferential-voting fantasy, one that has been shot down not once, but twice, here in B.C.?

And then there’s the one allowing any “liberal-minded” Canadian to vote for the party’s leader — no membership fees allowed. What fun that will be.

Stephen Harper must be wondering how much better things can get.

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

Hiring a new CAO not for the faint of heart

If ever there was a time for mayor and council to acknowledge their limitations, this is it.

A stopper needs to be put in any delusions that hiring a new chief administrative officer is going to be easy. Sending out a few emails and putting a couple of ads somewhere (or maybe a tweet?) is the sort of thing the neighbourhood corner store might do for hiring a kid to stock the shelves, but it falls short in picking the City’s top bureaucrat.

It is, if you’ll excuse the expression, ignus fatuus.

If you look around the council table, you won’t find a lot of experience in this. Among the nine of them, how many senior City officers have they hired?

The answer is, none. Even if you count the two that the mayor has been involved in with the regional district, that comes to an average of 0.222 per council member.

There’s nothing surprising about that — no Kamloops council has had to hire a CAO for more than a decade. Experience in hiring in their own businesses and vocations ranges among councilors, but it doesn’t appear overwhelming. Those who do have some background in it will understand the challenge.

The adage that he who is his own lawyer has a fool for a client is useful here — a council that does its own hiring is on thin ice.

I don’t, of course, propose that council let someone else make the decision. But the process is not for the faint of heart or the inexperienced. Council must begin by defining the kind of person it wants, someone who will “fit,” then wade into the marketplace to identify candidates, doing reference checks, and grilling the contenders.

In other words, council needs a headhunter, which is just another word for recruiter, someone who knows the corporate world, and knows where to look. Someone who doesn’t sit around waiting for replies to ads or emails, but who recruits.

Then, the headhunter shortens the list and prepares council, and the candidates, for interviews. Even with instruction, interviewing candidates, especially at this level, is not a skill learned overnight (and, while the HR department is often good support, it can do only so much).

I came across a column this week called “The headhunter,” by a guy named Nick Corcodilos. Admittedly not neutral on the topic, he nevertheless has a lot of smart things to say about hiring top managers.

He writes, for example, about the “hidden candidate pool…. That is, they’re not looking, but they’re available.”

Employers who try to do it all themselves are simply hiring from what they think is available, not what might be — like shooting at whatever fish happen to swim by, says Corcodilos.

Make no mistake — even with the help of a headhunter this is no day in the park. The real work begins with the shortlist, and hiring by committee is not easy, beginning with the inevitable absence of at least some council members at pretty much every interview.

When the interviews are done, nine people will have to get together and compare incomplete notes.

They don’t need the distractions of having to deal with their own mistakes.

Would a headhunter be expensive?

The more important question: What would hiring the wrong CAO cost the taxpayers of Kamloops?

mrothenburger@kamloopsnews.ca

My two lives with City CAO Randy Diehl

Whenever Randy Diehl gets really cheesed off with somebody, his first impulse is to reach for the phone. After resisting that temptation, he writes a scorching memo or email.

Then he lets it simmer for 24 hours. If it’s still a little too hot, he gives it more time.

I’ve been thankful for this practice, on a few occasions over the past six years, after being on the receiving end of his discontent. Avoiding first impulses is but one of Diehl’s strengths.

Many have known him longer, but for roughly half of his years as the City’s chief administrative officer, I was his colleague (and, technically at least, his boss).

For the other half, I’ve been, in a sense, his critic.

But I can tell you that during all that time I’ve admired his administrative abilities. Comments this week lauding him for bringing a new sense of direction and leadership to City Hall are not over-stated.

He won the job in December of 2000. It wasn’t handed to him; he had to fight hard for it.

A head hunter came up with 65 applicants, short-listed them to a half dozen, and turned it over to council. All of them were exceptional, several already holding comparable jobs in larger cities.

Like a jury in a court trial, members of council began divided but eventually were able to make a decision. Diehl has made those civic politicians, of which I was one, look pretty damn smart.

He was fortunate, in a sense, that some others in the administrative staff were reaching retirement age, which allowed him to pick the people who would work for him.

One of Diehl’s greatest strengths has been his ability to bridge the gap between council and administration while retaining an appropriate separation of church and state.

Any government is tested by the juxtaposition of political decision-making with administrative decision-making, and it can be lethal. Diehl’s office door was always open for members of council, a big change from the way things had been done for many years.

This new model was made official when we as a council created the first comprehensive strategic plan, and Diehl tied it directly into a clear corporate plan. This keeps policy maklng in the hands of mayor and council, but allows administration to carry out that policy with minimum interference.

Part and parcel of this approach is Diehl’s personal style. He empowers staff to manage, treats them well and is a popular leader. When they are criticized publicly, he bristles, and he defends them, but if they need to be pulled in for a pep talk, he’ll do it, and they get the message.

My relationship with Diehl has been entirely different since I returned to The Daily News six years ago. He knows well that public servants and media exist in a constant state of tension, one that he’s wary of.

There are times when I’ve believed Diehl to be flat-out wrong, and he’s made a few decisions I continue to believe were wrong (I’m guessing the sentiment is returned).

But I challenge anyone to name another municipal CAO who comes close to his standards. The standing ovation he received in council chambers this week when he announced his May 1 retirement date was sincere, and totally deserved.

The answers from EAO on Ajax mine public forums

Following is the full text of the written response I received via Ministry of Environment public affairs officer Trish Rorison on the public forums planned for Ajax mine.

 

Why will there be no town hall or public forum as part of the environmental assessment process?

·         There will be town hall sessions, but they will be held at a different time than the February 6 and 7 sessions.

·         The EAO has directed KGHM to develop town hall style sessions which will allow the people of Kamloops and stakeholders to ask questions of the panellists. These will be conducted by KGHM, as part of the environmental assessment process.

·         We understand the concerns and sensitivities, that’s why EAO has built in a number of extra measures to communicate and connect to the public and stakeholders on this proposal. This public consultation process is more exhaustive than any other EA project in the Province.

·         Other Public comment/input options:

Two-day, 16 hour public engagement sessions on Feb. 6 & 7 from noon to 8 pm each day at the Kamloops Convention Centre including over 20 representatives from the Environmental Assessment Office, Canadian Environmental Assessment Agency and technical representatives from KGHM.   These representatives will be available to talk with people about their concerns and to answer questions about the environmental assessment process and the proposed project.  All issues and responses will be tracked and made available on EAO’s website.
Two-month public comment period from Jan. 11 – March 12 where members of the public can provide comment online at http://www.eao.gov.bc.ca/pcp/forms/Ajax_form.html.
Proposed development of Community Advisory Group to provide a continued voice and local perspective on the environmental assessment of the proposed Ajax Mine.
o   EAO has ordered KGHM to develop a Community Consultation Plan which will include a public engagement strategy and a series of public meetings/ forums where concerned citizens can ask questions about the proposed mine.  A key element of this plan will also be a strategy to allow increased access to project related information.

·         It’s important to remember the EAO and CEAA are conducting an independent review of this project and have no position whatsoever for or against it. The role of these neutral agencies is to gather information re: environmental, social, heritage, economic and health impacts of the project as well as any cumulative impacts from other developments in the area.  The public comments and input are very important to help define the types of issues that should be addressed by the Proponent.

·         We want and need the public input and encourage all methods we’ve provided to be used.

What are the security issues around such a format that were referred to in previous meetings between Environmental Assessment Office/ Canadian Environmental assessment agency and KAPA?

·         A two-day engagement session – which is over and above the standard 4-hour session for similar projects – demonstrates that we are very confident that there is no risk to anyone regarding safety.

·         However, any public event runs the risk of safety to the people attending and this one is no different.

·         It’s true, there have been issues in the past in other areas of the province with some events which involved minor incidents.  We have learned that the best approach for the public to learn the facts and have their questions heard is to provide a variety of options and opportunities, including public forums and more technical sessions, such as the ones on February 6 and 7.