Jump to content

      



























Photo

Saanich EDPA


  • Please log in to reply
262 replies to this topic

#101 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 01:08 PM

I'm unsure how conflict of interest rules apply in this type of situation, but the role you play in the decision making process may be called into question whether it was impartial or not. If you cast enough doubt then all decisions made or advice given may have to be revisited.

 

Disclosure rules are usual pretty stringent

 

I have no idea what the complaint against Mr. Lea was but assuming that it was for some type of misconduct (typically the reason why someone would complain to a professional association) then the people filing such a complaint should be protected against retaliation. It is not the complainants fault that it took a year for the association to inform Mr. Lea. If this anonymous group advocating on behalf of Mr. Lea was looking for fair disclosure then they would  publish both sides of the complaint.


  • rjag likes this

#102 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:00 PM

Boy, these biology folks run a tight ship.

 

https://www.cab-bc.o...oad/code-ethics



#103 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 18 April 2017 - 09:12 PM

There appears to be some very clear guidelines about how a complaint shall be handled with regards to notification and process. If procedural rules were followed by everyone involved it would be impossible for the recipient of a complaint to be unaware of the complaint.

 

https://www.cab-bc.o...d-biology-rules



#104 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 06:54 AM

There appears to be some very clear guidelines about how a complaint shall be handled with regards to notification and process. If procedural rules were followed by everyone involved it would be impossible for the recipient of a complaint to be unaware of the complaint.

 

https://www.cab-bc.o...d-biology-rules

 

You are right. The explanation provide by the advocacy group doesn't pass the sniff test.

 

Digging into this a little deeper, it appears as though Adriane Pollard, and presumably the other two complainants (not identified) are also registered biologists. Makes sense as the rules dictate that a complaints should be made by other members of the 'college'. The process is that they would have addressed their concerns with Mr. Lea and if he failed to act they would have filed a complaint with the college. 

 

One has to wonder that with Mr. Lea now publicly challenging the conduct and professionalism of Adriane Pollard whether he has been disciplined by the college. If not, this public attack on another college member in itself would probably be cause for a complaint and discipline.


Edited by spanky123, 19 April 2017 - 07:04 AM.


#105 Sparky

Sparky

    GET OFF MY LAWN

  • Moderator
  • 13,115 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 07:44 AM

^ I worked with Adriane on the Todd Creek/Prospect Lake Action Plan over 20 years ago. She was a very professional representative of the Municipality at that time. I imagine with another 20 years of experience under her belt, she has a pretty good idea of how to handle herself.



#106 pinguu

pinguu
  • Member
  • 16 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 12:52 PM

[removed quote - pinguu]

 

 

post-5-0-19694000-1489795541.png

 

 

 

What seems crazy to me, is that curious bend in the EDPA boundary at the Woodhall home

 

I just thought I would point out that the EDPA line there matches a specific distance exactly from the "Sensitive Ecosystem Inventory" which looks like it was defined around 1995  - you can find out more information here about them: http://www.env.gov.bc.ca/sei/van_gulf/  That specific area there is the Swan Lake Christmas Hill Nature Sanctuary.


  • vicstargazer likes this

#107 vicstargazer

vicstargazer
  • Member
  • 13 posts

Posted 19 April 2017 - 01:15 PM

I'm unsure how conflict of interest rules apply in this type of situation, but the role you play in the decision making process may be called into question whether it was impartial or not. If you cast enough doubt then all decisions made or advice given may have to be revisited.

 

Disclosure rules are usual pretty stringent

I agree. Tho, I'm not sure about conflict of interest regarding decisions that involve Ms. Pollard since council voted against her staff report/expertise and made decisions entirely on Ted Lea's work. You would think that they would now have to reconsider some of the decisions and exclusions they have made now that there are complaints to the college. Council also moved to have a public hearing to exclude 27 other properties from the EDPA based on Ted Lea's work on May 13. 

Why would Ted Lea lawyer up and attack the people who are questioning his free work? It seems a little strange. 


  • rjag likes this

#108 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 07:16 AM

Why would Ted Lea lawyer up and attack the people who are questioning his free work? It seems a little strange. 

 

Well if you read between the lines in the email above it sounds like at least some of the work wasn't free. 



#109 Benn

Benn
  • Member
  • 74 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 08:57 AM

Code of Ethics requires disclosure of professional relationship (employment/contract/volunteer) when acting or presenting on behalf of a client or employer or other entity. https://www.cab-bc.o...oad/code-ethics



#110 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 20 April 2017 - 09:46 AM

Code of Ethics requires disclosure of professional relationship (employment/contract/volunteer) when acting or presenting on behalf of a client or employer or other entity. https://www.cab-bc.o...oad/code-ethics

 

My layperson understanding of what I had read in the TC and Saanich News was that Mr. Lea was a retired professional biologist helping out his neighbours (the Albergs) and other residents concerned about the EPDA. 



#111 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 25 April 2017 - 08:01 AM

30 more applications to get out:

 

https://victoriabcno...da-designation/


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#112 VicHockeyFan

VicHockeyFan
  • Suspended User
  • 52,121 posts

Posted 11 May 2017 - 06:04 PM

Saanich rejected an unsolicited offer by one consultant to take the consultant reviewing a controversial bylaw on a field trip.
 
Council voted 7-1, with Mayor Richard Atwell opposed, to reject an offer by Aqua-Tex Scientific Consulting Ltd. to take Diamond Head Consulting on a guided one-day field trip as Diamond Head reviews Saanich’s Environmental Development Permit Area (EDPA) bylaw. The trip would see Aqua-Tex staff take Diamond Head staff on a tour of “properties on which the application of the EDPA has been considered controversial.”
 
Monday’s vote comes before a public hearing on 29 EDPA properties, set for 10 a.m. Saturday at the Garth Homer centre auditorium.

 

 

http://www.saanichne...dpa-field-trip/


<p><span style="font-size:12px;"><em><span style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:helvetica, arial, sans-serif;">"I don’t need a middle person in my pizza slice transaction" <strong>- zoomer, April 17, 2018</strong></span></em></span>

#113 spanky123

spanky123
  • Member
  • 20,976 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 05:12 AM

Ted Lea confirms what we had speculated here.

 

http://www.saanichne...dpa-opposition/



#114 Mike K.

Mike K.
  • Administrator
  • 83,184 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 05:26 AM

The three lawsuits against him, he says, come from a Saanich employee and two are from members of a pro-EDPA advocacy group.

 

His claim, from that article, is that the EDPA boundaries were poorly done using aerial maps rather than site visits and the borders include areas "overrun with invasive species and without any reflection of the sensitive, Garry oak and riparian ecosystems the bylaw is designed to protect."


Know it all.
Citified.ca is Victoria's most comprehensive research resource for new-build homes and commercial spaces.


#115 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:33 AM

This entire process is disingenuous.

 

While assorted Saanich Mayors and Councils have (over the years) approved turning Saanich from its 1955 composition of farms, open fields, and greenhouses into what it is today, to suddenly come out with zoning that makes it look like they care about the loss of Saanich's original landscape is a crock of crap.

 

As a kid in Gordon Head, I was considered as coming from a "poor family", as we lived on a 3 acre property in a house that was built in the 1920's.

The "rich" kids lived in either the new San Juan subdivision, or the slightly older CedarGlen subdivision.

 

The rest of Gordon Head was old berry farms, greenhouses, and daffodil fields ... and a bunch of 1, 2, and 3 acre properties where people just lived on big lots, mostly sectioned off from larger farm properties.

 

Saanich had absolutely no problem letting all of this essentially open and wild land go, but now they're back to "protect" a ribbon of properties that they deem as "invaluable" to the Saanich ecosystem?

 

What a load.

Nothing about this entire EDPA process passes the smell test. 

One gets the impression this started in some little Saanich municipal office occupied by a bored employee looking for some way to spice up their department and guarantee years of additional and secure employment.

 

Which begs the question where (exactly) did this process get started, and who (and why) did it develop the legs to get it where it is today?

These kinds of things don't just "pop" up, and they're usually initiated with the specific intent to benefit somebody (or something) somewhere?



#116 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,241 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 12 May 2017 - 08:56 AM

Additionally, I don't really see the value in 'protecting' a few trees here and there. Protect large areas of land, yes. Some Garry Oaks in someones backyard though? Why? 



#117 Coreyburger

Coreyburger
  • Member
  • 2,864 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:46 AM

Additionally, I don't really see the value in 'protecting' a few trees here and there. Protect large areas of land, yes. Some Garry Oaks in someones backyard though? Why? 

 

Because trees have all kinds of major ecological benefits that even a single tree can provide?



#118 lanforod

lanforod
  • Member
  • 11,241 posts
  • LocationSaanich

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:53 AM

Sure, but there are plenty of trees, without requiring rules for protecting them. We live in an urban/suburban area. Parks are great for these trees. Why do we need to mess with private land in an urban and suburban area? There will always be trees and plants as part of landscaping anyways...



#119 Cassidy

Cassidy
  • Banned
  • 2,501 posts
  • LocationVictoria

Posted 12 May 2017 - 11:55 AM

Because trees have all kinds of major ecological benefits that even a single tree can provide?

Along that line of thinking, why have assorted Saanich Councils permitted thousands of trees to be removed permanently in Saanich ... this in order to build the accommodations for the additional 103,752 people who've decided to move into Saanich since 1906?

 

Why didn't Saanich Council start this "eco-drive" in 1915, or 1930, or 1950, or 1970, or 1990, or 2010 or   .......... well, you probably get my point.

 

As I noted earlier, the EDPA is utterly disingenuous, and it deserves a detailed investigation as to exactly where it came from, and more importantly "why" it came to be such an important issue for assorted individuals who sit on Saanich City Council.


  • Mike K. likes this

#120 dasmo

dasmo

    Grand Master ✔

  • Member
  • 15,239 posts

Posted 12 May 2017 - 01:12 PM

Along that line of thinking, why have assorted Saanich Councils permitted thousands of trees to be removed permanently in Saanich ... this in order to build the accommodations for the additional 103,752 people who've decided to move into Saanich since 1906?

 

Why didn't Saanich Council start this "eco-drive" in 1915, or 1930, or 1950, or 1970, or 1990, or 2010 or   .......... well, you probably get my point.

 

As I noted earlier, the EDPA is utterly disingenuous, and it deserves a detailed investigation as to exactly where it came from, and more importantly "why" it came to be such an important issue for assorted individuals who sit on Saanich City Council.

Maybe it's because in 1915 there was no perception we could destroy the environment here. Certainly would not see any sweeping effects of it yet. 

here is a good example of those after effects: http://www.timescolo...ittee-1.2092404

Here is a good book to read that paints a picture of the impact of unrestrained "Activity" on the environment. It's in a round about way since this book is not about the environment at all but rather a biography on Gordon Gibson.... https://www.amazon.c...y/dp/1771000171


Edited by dasmo, 12 May 2017 - 01:12 PM.


You're not quite at the end of this discussion topic!

Use the page links at the lower-left to go to the next page to read additional posts.
 



0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users