87 replies to this topic

[gumgum]

Is there something shameful about taking maternity leave? Is that what I'm reading?

[VicHockeyFan]

Is there something shameful about taking maternity leave? Is that what I'm reading?

I'm unclear what the inference is too. EI pays maternity benefits, the city would not have paid her any salary during that time.

[piltdownman]

Just ask the person with the next highest amount of votes to step in, seems pretty democratic and fair.

Not really democratic or fair at all, because that is not the laws before this happened. Democracy breaks down when you just change the rules too fit the situation. 'Next highest voter' as a long term solution is unfair because it can lead to situations where no legitimate second candidate exists when the main candidate is strong. So lets say you run for position X, and because you are widely believed to be the best person for that position the only others that run against you are oddball candidates. On election night you sweep the polls and the other candidates get a few votes from their friends and family. Now a year later you step down ... do you really want those people to take power?

A byelection is the fairest outcome.

[VicHockeyFan]

There was talk after the last election about changing the rules to make it a little bit tougher for candidates to run, to pare out the oddballs. Higher fees or more nomination names needed to be gathered. I don't think anything has been done on that front. Would it be fair to still change those rules today, before the by-election is officially called?

[Bernard]

The nature of this by-election will be very different than the normal election. The media has only one election for one position to consider as opposed to 16 elections for about 120 positions.

Even if there are a huge number of candidates, only the three to four most serious ones will get air time in the media.

This election is also much easier for someone new to win because there are no incumbents and no multiple votes (I know that this sounds obvious, but it makes a real difference in who can win and how).

[Bernard]

I should have added, anyone serious about running needs to have their campaign manager in place soon. They also need to build a plan of how to raise the $15k that will be needed to run and find the 100 to 200 volunteers.

[mat]

There was talk after the last election about changing the rules to make it a little bit tougher for candidates to run, to pare out the oddballs. Higher fees or more nomination names needed to be gathered. I don't think anything has been done on that front. Would it be fair to still change those rules today, before the by-election is officially called?

Those nomination rules are set under the Local Election Act, which are being reviewed by the province. Victoria now requires the maximum of $100 and 25 nominators - and cannot apply further restrictions.

[VicHockeyFan]

Those nomination rules are set under the Local Election Act, which are being reviewed by the province. Victoria now requires the maximum of $100 and 25 nominators - and cannot apply further restrictions.

I see. I did not know that.

[Jacques Cadé]

Are the city's rules already set in stone? I'd like the nomination papers to clearly state that they will be published online -- and for the city to actually publish them, like Saanich does -- to deter nominations of rogue candidates. The provincial website doesn't mention anything about that.

Another interesting detail about nominations, from the provincial website:

How many people can I nominate to run in the local election?
A person entitled to make a nomination may subscribe to as many nomination documents as there are persons to be elected to fill the office for which the election is being held.

So if you nominate more than one person to stand for this by-election, the nomination is invalid.

[LJ]

I think a VV'er should be running, we have several knowledgable possible candidates.

We could all get behind this person in a volunteer and monetary way.

Perhaps put some life and sense into council.

[Rob Randall]

Just ask the person with the next highest amount of votes to step in, seems pretty democratic and fair.

Otherwise known as the Miss America scenario!

Seriously, I thank the people that have contacted me encouraging me to take another stab at it. I am seriously thinking about it and will decide once the dust settles.

As with the last election, I won't consider running if I think a more qualified person is electable. I don't intend to be a protest vote, my intent would be to get a seat at Council, that would only be fair to the people that help on the campaign.

[Bingo]

I think a VV'er should be running, we have several knowledgable possible candidates.

We could all get behind this person in a volunteer and monetary way.

Perhaps put some life and sense into council.

I agree, but if I suggest an individual my posting may be edited, so I will not name the moderator or the VV'er I have in mind.

[AnonAnnie2]

I'm unclear what the inference is too. EI pays maternity benefits, the city would not have paid her any salary during that time.

Oh for pete's sake no nothing behind taking time off work because of children - why would you get that from that post? good lord.

She took time off for kids, great, super, did she step down and there was a by-election? simple question.

[AnonAnnie2]

Is there something shameful about taking maternity leave? Is that what I'm reading?

whatever gumgum get real.

[gumgum]

^I suspect you're misunderstanding me. Regardless, I would rather hear a response from the horses mouth.

[AnonAnnie2]

^I suspect you're misunderstanding me. Regardless, I would rather hear a response from the horses mouth.

Since it appeared you were referring to MY question; if mat leave triggered a by-election that is what I responded to.

[gumgum]

I guess I thought it was glaringly obvious that I was reacting to Miss B's comment. (Maybe it wasn't.) More specifically, Miss B's rolling eyes at someone taking mat leave. I was merely asking for clarification on that. It had nothing to do with what you had written.

[Jacques Cadé]

Interesting election-related CFAX poll today: Do you like the idea of voting in municipal elections every four years, instead of every three?

[VicHockeyFan]

Interesting election-related CFAX poll today: Do you like the idea of voting in municipal elections every four years, instead of every three?

But wasn't it some type of court ruling that made them go to 3 years? Or maybe the court just ruled that they were not following the community charter correctly, and forced them to 3, and now they are changing the charter?

[Rob Randall]

I can see the benefits of having longer terms. Not only the cost savings but having an extra year to accomplish your goals lessens the risk of being associated with a single issue or controversy. Three years is not a long time politically.