By Don White.

With a year and a half of the current Council’s four year term completed, it’s time for Nanaimo voters to begin a review of how things have been going. By now, those elected to the Council should be long past any start up learning missteps, and they should be revealing their personal, go-to thinking patterns, biases, and voting predilections. It’s also time we should begin tracking any changes in those patterns going forward to the next election.

The Regular Council Meeting on June 15, 2020 provides an appropriate starting point. Specifically, we should look to the discussion and vote on the variance permitting construction of a single residential dwelling within the watercourse setback at 3258 Stephenson Point Road.

This motion provides a context to assess the actions of individual Councillors on several factors: their recognition of broad ecological implications, adherence to Council’s own declaration of a climate emergency, and their stewardship of our current environment for all future generations. Many of those sitting at the table cited these factors in their 2018 campaign platforms.

Not to prolong the suspense for any readers who didn’t watch the meeting, the builder’s application to reduce the setback from 30m to 6.9m as measured from the top of bank of Cottle Creek was approved by a vote of 8 to 1.

The full meeting can be seen by clicking here. Presentations for and against the setback begin at 27:45. The lone dissenting voice and vote belonged to Councillor Geselbracht. And the significance of the loss can be seen in his despondent body language following the application’s approval.

So what did the actions of each Council member on Monday night reveal of their voting predilections and stewardship of our futures? Taking an evaluative approach from our public education system and starting with the chair:

Leonard Krog: Leonard was elected to break destructive patterns of the past, including acrimony between councillors and the mayor, councillors and staff, and generally with the voting public. Voters hoped he could foster civility among all parties. In these respects he can be thought of as successful. The working and personal relationships at Nanaimo’s City Hall have changed generally for the better. The same between City Hall and the general public. On the downside, Leonard continues to demonstrate an unfortunate habit of making preachy speeches that imply he, personally, holds a corner on ethical and classical knowledge and the broadest, most educated, and most deeply relevant life experience needed for “right” thinking. He frequently argues from the positions that what is legal is also moral, just, and fair – and that private property rights are paramount – questionable assumptions at best. These seemingly entrenched views were again front and centre Monday night. His rejecting the application for a building variance was an obvious non-starter from the outset. Leonard will need to objectively question the validity of his assumptions, particularly in the context of the sustainability of our community going forward to the future, if he wants to be seen as anything but a “stay in the past candidate” in 2022.

Sheryl Armstrong: Sheryl earned her seat on the current council by her successful and laudable efforts to protect our city’s staff and electorate from frequent, flagrant abuses by the previous council and a couple of its senior managers. In this, Nanaimo voters owed her a great debt and they willingly paid that debt by re-electing her to office in 2018. While Sheryl’s career in the RCMP served her well in her chosen role on the previous Council, she hasn’t grown particularly well into the currently changed City Hall environment. Unhappily, her experience as a police officer and on the last Council appear to have set the limits of her approach to governance. She presents herself as the “law and order” councillor. Now lacking a clear enemy, she sometimes turns on her fellow councillors, on occasion even nastily. She chooses to view the relevance of most things from a narrow ranges of interests (e.g. parking, traffic, policing, and seniors). She tends to vote with Leonard Krog on the sanctity of private property rights. Without her making some drastic changes, (and I really hope she does), Sheryl could face an uphill struggle to convince voters she is worthy of another term.

Ian Thorpe: This is Ian’s second term on Nanaimo Council. I endorsed him in the last election for the continuity he might provide between successive councils, and for the mentoring he might give new members. Also appreciated was the way he maintained civility during the past term even when others didn’t. Whether any of these facets were of actual value, their time for continuity and mentoring has passed. Ian’s civility does continue with the current council, although it can appear as smug superiority to the point of his appearing supercilious. Unfortunately, Leonard Krog’s similar manner appears to have reinforced this trait for Ian. In addition, Ian can seem more concerned with ingratiating himself with staff and members of the public than with facilitating exploration of any paths untrodden. His statements of appreciation of staff have reached the level of cliché. His previous habit of pulling his head down and in when threatened now happens for any approach to municipal governance other than the most traditional. Ian rarely, if ever, presents an initiative on his own, which is a disservice to himself as well as voters. He would better serve everyone were he to delve down to his own core values and acknowledge that the status quo is often their worst enemy.

Jim Turley: Jim came to the present Council as a representative of the long-standing business community in Nanaimo, as someone who could interpret and take Council’s messages back to this segment of our population. I don’t know whether he has fulfilled this mandate. However, it is fair to say that crises in his personal life have not made his political career an easy one. I could go on, but suspect Jim is unlikely to run for another term. In the meantime, I sympathize with him in his situation, but nonetheless wish he could find the time and energy to pull up his socks and try a little harder.

Zeni Maartman: Zeni is, perhaps, my biggest disappointment – not because I had especially high expectations of her but because I didn’t know her well. Not knowing her, I had hoped, even imagined, that she might be a force for change, a voice for embracing the untried, a new way forward. Unfortunately, Zeni’s most consistent desire now appears to be wanting to play with the old boys’ club, hang out with the well-established, and get herself some of that good ole respect even if it’s by a process of osmosis. Her manner in challenging those who opposed the setback variance in Monday’s meeting was almost giddy. I kept trying to understand why she seemed so wildly happy. (Was it because she knew her side was going to win?) Although I once perceived Zeni to be a swing vote on Nanaimo Council, her record suggests she is a actually a staunch supporter and compatriot of those opting for the status quo, the old normal. On Monday night, she was squarely pro-development, although (and this is an interesting caveat), underneath it all, I suspect Zeni sees herself quite differently. If so, some honest self-evaluation is likely to be of benefit to herself, Council, and Nanaimo voters. Voters will want to know who they are electing in 2022.

Don Bonner: Don might usually be described as a thoughtful, principled man of action. Want to get something started, an initiative underway, cut through the bureaucratic red tape (or received protocols of local governance)? Give Don Bonner a call and watch it happen. However, it seems that on occasion (and Monday’s vote on changing the riparian setback was surely one), Don can take on a different image. He claimed to base his support for allowing encroaching on the preserved, ecological corridor between the ocean and Cottle Lake on his reading of government policy concerning riparian setbacks. On the surface, fair enough, but on a deeper level I was surprised Don failed to understand that governmental, environmental policies are never, ever intended to be actually followed to the point of being ecologically effective – not if they compromise our individual right to profit. Don expressed confidence that the property would be better off after its development than it was before. (At which point my jaw dropped, and I confess to feeling blindsided.) Better for whom? Better for the drive-by viewer, better for whoever maintains the landscaping? Certainly not better from an ecological perspective. How can restrictions of wildlife corridors benefit the wildlife? As one presenting opponent put it, once the corridor to Cottle Lake is gone, it’s gone. One of Nanaimo’s greatest assets is its wealth of natural areas. The values of those assets will increase tremendously in the coming years, not decrease. I am used to Don thinking from a broader ethical base than the one he appeared to rely on for Monday’s vote. My hope – and I recognize this as strictly personal – is that Don changes again to more closely be the councillor I saw before.

Tyler Brown: Philosopher, academic, hoped-for actualizer of municipal visions. Tyler’s 2018 campaign posters declared “It’s time.” But apparently it wasn’t time on Monday night. Tyler can sometimes appear to be more interested in bettering Krog at dropping historical and/or literary quotes than in actually getting down to implementing policy. The positives he brings to Nanaimo Council include a willingness and ability to delve below the surface, to understand the deeper implications, put those on the table, and make them part of deliberations. Unfortunately, he sometimes fails to make connections and relevance clear. The upshot is that he sometimes comes off theoretical, too much like a thought-bound philosopher at the end of the table. Tyler may well know more about the factors that destroy or create and sustain communities than anyone else at Nanaimo’s Council table, but his vote on Monday night to allow the creation of an ecological bottleneck on Cottle Creek raised some crucial questions about his vision. Does “community” for Tyler only include the human species? Does sustainability not include natural, environmental factors? Is it only and all about bus routes, bike lanes, and planned infill housing? For me, the challenges Tyler now faces as we move into this term’s second half is in clarifying his thinking to voters and demonstrating that he is as concerned with actual policy implementation as with its theoretical considerations.

Erin Hemmens: Of all the current members on Nanaimo Council, Erin is the one most capable of speaking directly from the heart. When she does so, she demonstrates a strength that is at least a match for anyone sitting at the table. Moreover, Erin’s worldview is among the broadest, and her concerns for including everyone is also the most comprehensive. But those strengths, for her, come with a downside. Erin sometimes appears lost in a blizzard of her own disparate good intentions. The easy way out of such a fog, unfortunately, can be grabbing onto the first inkling of a signpost, and following it – for good or bad – to a hoped for exit. On Monday night Erin claimed to have wrestled long and hard with the variance application and with seeing all sides and implications. She struggled to articulate the reasons why she would support reducing the riparian corridor from 30 meters to 6.9 meters, but ultimately relied on her faith that the state of the property after building would not be worse than it is now. There is an adage that she/he who sees all sides, sees nothing. Erin would do herself and voters a significant service were she to spend some time considering that adage and in maintaining the connection to her foundational values and in keeping faith in the strength of her own backbone. What a voice for good this Councillor could be! Voters will have to wait to see if she makes that effort and how it turns out.

Ben Geselbracht: Without question, Ben is the most committed environmental and ecological advocate seated at the Council table. As such, it was no surprise that he provided a strong, even eloquent argument for preserving the wildlife corridor from the ocean to Cottle Lake. His arguments on Monday night were informed, reasoned, and broadly relevant. His objections to the zoning variation amounted to a dissertation on the value of ecological systems and the need for an ecological worldview – information more crucial now than ever. It is no discredit to Ben that he failed to change the minds of others at the table. It was not for want of a solid argument the motion passed. However, despite his being the sole person on Council opposing the zoning variation, Ben doesn’t earn an automatic pass for his time as Councillor. On many occasions, the word that seems comes to mind to most accurately describe his participation is “absent.” Whether Ben is physically in the room or not, he often strikes me as being, well… gone. This is a serious shortcoming in one who would change the minds of others and update currently unhelpful municipal policies. Exactly because of the importance of his vision for our collective and generational future, and precisely for his willingness to stand and advocate for action on those principles, Ben’s mindful presence is critical for our well-being. Let’s hope he learns to stay more present.

In summary, four members of Nanaimo’s current City Council (Krog, Thorpe, Armstrong, and Turly) demonstrate quite consistently that have little inclination for working towards a future that is any different from the world in which they grew up and prospered.

Four other Councillors (Bonner, Brown, Hemmens, and Maartman), demonstrate that their commitment to change and sustainability can be variable and undependable.

That leaves one voice, Ben Geselbracht, (when he’s present), as the sole reliable champion and advocate we have for putting respect for ecological relationships into practice.

Given our current daily lessons from the pandemic and climate change, we need at least four more Councillors to step up and stand with Geselbracht on sustainability-related issues. Their diminishing of the watercourse setback on Cottle Creek constitutes its own setback to all our collective futures.

Whether Nanaimo Councillors like it or not, ecological responsibility is about to become the main factor by which all our actions – past and present – will be judged.