Matt Todd's Pursuit of Idyll Minds

I am offering my services to KPU students again this year – this time, as Director of Operations.

Over the last year as Director of External Affairs, I got a lot of good things done:

• Negotiated the U-Pass BC contract on behalf of KPU students.
• Got student union building (SUB) negotiations back on track.
• Started a governance review of how decisions are made and performance is measured.
• Put in place new systems to make the KSA more professional and accountable.

As Director of Operations, I would be able to continue guiding development of the SUB and intercampus shuttle service. I would also be responsible for ensuring that the changes recommended in the governance review actually get implemented.

These initiatives represent millions of dollars of student fees. My training and experience makes me the best candidate for ensuring these funds are well managed and spent wisely.

My competitor in the KSA election has done a great job on messaging. He has some strong sounding claims.

I do not intend to discount his successes over the past years. They are worthy. However, my question is, sooo… is that it? There are no tangible results. It appears that there have been more bridges burned than built over the past couple years, more opportunities missed than used. I congratulate Mr. Robertson on his achievements. I just think I can do better.

A campaign platform promise from the Liberals for the Upass is NOT money in the bank. There are very sensitive negotiations and much creative thought still required to complete this initiative. I have seen no evidence that Mr. Robertson has this capacity. On the contrary, a quick Google search finds articles and forums indicating that he may have done more harm than good over his tenure. The KSA needs someone with proven skills for finding common ground.

I already know many of the people that the KSA needs to work with to achieve the Upass. I have worked with them successfully in the past when I was on White Rock City Council. I can do it once again. My skills and established relationships would give the KSA a better position than Mr. Robertson can offer. He has been responsible for this file for years and accomplished little more than hollow promises and a record of failed offers. I can do better.

This is my candidate profile for the upcoming Kwantlen Student Association election:

I am studying psychology and economics toward a masters degree in community planning. 

I offer a lot of practical experience to the role of External Affairs.
For example:

served on White Rock City Council for 6 years

successfully lobbied for new bylaws across the region

have positive working relationships with Translink & elected leaders throughout the region

I would bring a fresh, intelligent and cooperative approach to how the KSA deals with governments and other student unions. 

Proven effective, I have the skills and experience needed to negotiate the U-Pass for Kwantlen. 

I am seeking the role of Director External Affairs for the Kwantlen Student Association. The main reason is because I think Kwantlen should have the U-Pass. It appears to me as though Kwantlen has fumbled its opportunities in the past and continues to do so now. The Student Association needs to develop a more cooperative attitude in its dealings with Translink, local politicians, and student associations from other universities. The KSA needs to adopt a more pragmatic strategy. I can develop that strategy. I have the experience, and I already have positive relationships with the people who can help Kwantlen get the U-Pass. I’ve achieved more difficult tasks. I can get this one done. Finally.

Government is people!

Unlike Soylent Green, we already know this, yet the inevitable reaction to humanness in government is horror and outrage. There is an obscene expectation that those who are elected suddenly become infallible, more knowledgeable and more intelligent… in their agreement with our own assumptions.

With each passing month, this current city council is becoming the devil they claimed to exorcise from city hall. But did that evil actually exist except in the minds of cynics and pessimists? Similar to Councillor Campbell’s description of misguided protesters in the Peace Arch News today, perhaps those who protested the alleged arrogance and secret agendas of city councillors were themselves unwilling to consider alternate perspectives?

The allegations of corruption and coersion are a result, not of misdeeds within city hall, but of the human condition that leads people to assume that their perspective is more correct than anyone else’s. In attempt to explain why someone with responsibilty would make a decision different than we assume we would make, we make up stories. Newly elected officials who vowed to be different soon find themselves, after carefully considering the information available to them, acting very similar to their predecessors.

Government is people.

Below is a message I received earlier today.

From: mseedwards@shaw.ca
Subject:
Date: June 12, 2009 4:54:10 PM PDT (CA)
To: WriteToMe@MattTodd.ca

You Suck ….You act like a child that got no icecream ……………..i wish i never heard of you …………GO away…………………

signed ..happy you lost!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

In the NOW newspaper last week, when asked whether I would be seeking a councillor seat in the coming by-election, I replied that “I don’t want to work with most of the people on this council. It’s not a team I could work with.”

Yesterday on this website, I elaborated on that statement with a brief critique of each council member. That post has now been removed. Shortly after writing it, I was speaking with City Manager, Peggy Clark. Our conversation reminded me that know what it is like to be in public office and the subject of personal commentary. On reflection afterward, I realized it was unfair and ungracious of me to post judgement on their character in the manner I did. Now in reversed roles, I should practice what I had preached and offer them the dignity and trust I wish I had been given when I was in their chair.

Speculation on whether or not I would be able to work with current councillors is pointless. I accept and respect the electorate’s decision to not elect me in November. My defeat was decisive and unambiguous. The message was clear. I followed the direction provided by voters of White Rock and have moved on. I will not be seeking a return to council in the by-election regardless of the current members’ traits. Read on »

White Rock was the subject of another monumental Supreme Court decision last week. City Council’s decision to deny the Yearsley’s a development permit a few years ago for a six storey tower on the beach was overturned by the courts; the City has been ordered to allow the development to proceed.

The judge explained that “reliance on public opinion is not a relevant consideration if it is not linked to legitimate factors within the zoning bylaw or the OCP.” Since the six storey height of the building is permitted within the bylaw due to a fluke of how the property is sloped, public opposition to the height is legally irrelevant.

This is incredibly disappointing for three reasons.

First of all, it undermines the discretion that citizens believe City Council has for influencing development in the community. It greatly diminishes the authority I thought I had as a member of city council to direct the look and shape of buildings. In my decision to deny the permit, I believe that the building will not complement the surrounding neighbourhood or fit in with the general feel that is intended for the waterfront. Elected representatives for the community ought to have the authority to interpret public opinion and define the vision for the community’s future. Removing subjectivity from City Council’s judgement neuters its ability to respond to neighbourhood concerns and the community’s evolving vision. Read on »

It seems a lot of people assume that most politicians are compulsive liars. Unfortunately, my successful petition to have a lying politician ousted from office may reinforce that belief. While the behaviour of James Coleridge was certainly deceitful, he is a very rare exception.

The problem with politicians isn’t that they’re dishonest; it’s that they’re human. As such, they have emotions; they can want things to be true that aren’t, making themselves susceptible to self-deception; and they can just simply be wrong because they can’t possibly know everything about all things. So, if an elected official says something at one time then says something different later, is it that they were lying the first time? Or did they learn something new, hear a compelling alternate opinion, or see things from a new perspective? Maybe, after some more careful consideration, they just changed their mind?

In the case of the Coleridge deception, he said things that he knew are not true and then refused to accept responsibility for that lie until forced to do so in Supreme Court. This is an unusual exception. This isn’t a case of him changing his mind or misunderstanding the facts at hand; he told people things even though he knew they were not true.

Ignorance, misunderstanding and naiveté is understandably human and tolerable. Deception is also human, but much less tolerable. But it’s not enough to demand more integrity from politicians. Deceit should be equally unacceptable for all people, not just elected leaders.

People who step up to serve as leaders in our community should not be set up for ridicule with unrealistic expectations that, upon being elected, they should suddenly become smarter and less susceptible to self-deception than everyone else in the community. The best way to raise the standard for politicians is to raise the standard within the whole community.

My petition to have the election of James Coleridge declared invalid was successful. The judge released her decision yesterday. He is no longer a member of City Council for the City of White Rock. He is required to pay $20,000 toward the cost of a byelection to fill his vacant seat, and some of my legal costs will be reimbursed.

What is ironic about the decision is that the judge seemed less concerned about him pretending he didn’t know who sent the contentious email and making up stories to cover his tracks, it was that he was lying about being honest in his campaign advertising — he was selling himself as being someone who citizens could trust to be honest with them, all the while he was lying.

But this judgment is less about lying than it is about integrity. They are related, but there is a difference. Integrity requires that you accept responsibility for your choices. Yes, Coleridge lied, but it was his lack of integrity — his unwillingness to accept responsibility for his incorrect and misleading statements — that cost him his office. In reading the judgment, it sounds like, had he enough integrity to admit his error when he had the chance (before I filed a petition in Supreme Court to force him to do so), he probably would have escaped this consequence.