Jack Peake’s August 13, 2020 letter describes symptoms of a largely unacknowledged conflict of interest local governments have with respect to the Alternative Approval Process.
In a May 17, 2016 Staff Report to Committee, Cowichan Valley Regional District Corporate Secretary Joe Barry appeared to accept that, in the absence of “negative comments regarding AAPs in various newspaper stories, letters to the editor, blog site postings, social media chatter, and on the radio” there is significantly less “awareness of both the new service proposals and their AAPs.”
He also appeared to acknowledge the CVRD has legitimate interest in impeding the process of filing AAP Elector Response Forms. He said, “The CVRD should not be financially assisting a campaign that is being organized to defeat a proposal the Board is in favour of (the Board has already shown their support for the proposal by granting the required bylaw three readings).”
Statements like these highlight the apparent conflict of interest local governments face with respect to AAPs. They want their proposals to receive elector assent. Their strongest allies in this regard are less public awareness of the proposals and their AAPs, and impeding the flow of AAP Elector Response Forms.
A more detailed description of the reasons why AAPs are unethical can be found at https://saltairnews.ca/2018/06/07/three-reasons-why-the-alternative-approval-process-is-unethical/.
Related: Three reasons why the Alternative Approval Processis unethical?
Gord Van Dyck
Saltair