Meeting of Board of Directors


May 10th, 2006

Directors Present: Henry Phillips, Linda Foubister, Janet Simpson, Dave Clark, Doris Schuh, Susan Bartol-Drinker, Frank Hess, Doreen Mueller, Wayne Poohachoff, John Weaver
Regrets: Councillor Bea Holland, Ethelyn McInnes-Rankin,
Guests: Catherine Spencer, Helmut Hissen, Henrik de Pagter, Lois Johnson, Lloyd Ollila

Meeting called to order at 19:06

1. Agenda: Motion to accept (as amended): (DM/DS) Carried
2. Minutes for March 8th: Motion to approve (DC/LF) Carried
Discussion: for consistency, don’t report the numbers for, against and abstaining
3. Minutes for April 12th: Motion to approve (as amended): (LF/DS) Carried
Cost for Moss Rocks insertion: $350 for full page, $225 for half page
4. Financial report: Received for information.
The Board has four accounts: (balance)
Walking tour and other projects (1729.86)
Garden (2401.61)
Membership (7140.28)
Base (1075.94)
4 directors have signing authority; any 2 must sign each cheque (ds/sbd)
Discussion
• Neighbourhood grant – a development program grant (per capita) to facilitate
meetings, publications, special events. This year’s rate 0.553% x 3575
people =$2230
• Matching grant program - call in March with end of April deadline.
5. CALUC procedures
Helmut Hissen provided some background information:
• 2003 initiated cross-city discussion of LUC representatives.
• Together, CALUC sought clarification from City Planning staff of process, roles and responsibilities.
• Documented local processes and moved to standardize.
• HH reported to RNA board monthly and incorporated feedback where possible.
• Developed consensus across 12 associations, UDI, City Planning Department.
• Alison Meyer sent out the draft processes and forms on March 31.
• Council passed the acceptance motion in April, and now the costs for the preliminary mailout can be recovered from the developer.
• An information package including laminated process diagrams will be forwarded to LUCs in June.
• There will be a 12 month trial of these procedures.
DISCUSSION:
• Although the procedures may be a departure from the practice of some associations, Step 4 in the procedures reflects the process that RNA had been following.
• Concern over the meaning of the statement “appearance of bias = Keep an open mind and consider the input before entrenching your position. For example – Prior to a public meeting do not engage in a letter-writing campaign in the local press.
• "no voting" because meetings can be stacked either way. Rather, council wants to have all the impacts on the table.
• HH: This is an opportunity to thank the city for their support of this process and to concur that it can serve as a model for neighbourhood input in future initiatives
• City is sending the message that this approach builds the profile of the associations and values their input.
• FH: Procedures imply neutrality of Board members as they gather and report the views of neighbours. Rather, the board’s actions should be proactive support of the vision expressed in the Neighbourhood plan. Development pressures will increase in the future.
• DM: Common forms will increase the effectiveness of our communications with the planning staff. Our job is to monitor the process over the course of the coming year and be prepared to submit constructive proposals for improvement. Concentrate our efforts on interpreting the development in the context of the RNPlan. Conflict of interest clauses may need improvement next year. Recommends that we ratify the procedures.
motion: (DM/DC) That the RNA accept the procedures for 1 year commencing June 12th. And maintain contact with the City and other associations during that year, and be prepared to propose amendments that address issues that may arise.
DISCUSSION: WP speaks against the motion. Clarification - Reference in the procedures to the CALUC means the RNA LUC. For the purposes of RNA, we can clarify the operating relationship. carried.
Point of order: (Henrik de Pagter) – the motion, once presented, is debatable. Thus, FH should have been given another opportunity to speak against the motion.
HP: We are operating an informal process - we may have erred.
6. Correspondence
a) materials relating to recreation.
b) BH councillor's report
c) 1524 Montgomery cc letter to Mayor and council
d) Petition and response.
e) Letter from Wei Tu - Leigh Large will be the contact person from now
on. (in response to FH conversation with WT)
f) City hall minutes
g) City development base grants project - information on Neighbourhood
banners.
7. Business arising from minutes
• Personal information Protection act: proposed statement and proposed policy circulated by email, earlier. Used a template to generate a statement that will be included on membership forms in the future to clarify the conditions under which personal information will be released.
DISCUSSION: We are legally bound to do this. We need to appoint a privacy officer.
For the purposes of achieving the intent of DM's AGM motion, may require a specific statement on the membership form that the member will allow his/her name released to those who want to gather a quorum for an extraordinary meeting of the association.
• John Weaver: Proposes a procedure for members at large wishing to make a presentation to the board – up until 1 week prior to meeting, send a notice to the secretary so it can be included in the draft agenda sent out 1 week ahead of the RNA board meeting.
• Develop a standing agenda and a calendar of board meetings for the coming year
8. Committee Reports
a. Communications: fast turnaround on emails to the list – thanks to CS.
DH will work to incorporate buttons on the web page that will produce a blank email to a generic address (e.g., Pres, Secty, LUC chair, etc.) that will be automatically forwarded to the appropriate officer or chair.
Monday magazine has marginalised Rockland by including Government House and Craigdarroch Castle in "Fairfield"
b. Membership stands at 186
c. Newsletter - $225 was spent for 1/2 page for Rockland in the Moss Rocks Review. We still plan to publish 2 newsletters Rockland-only distributed through the web site, through e-mail and by mail to the remaining members. July 31st as deadline for the first edition.
d. Traffic JS sent out an e-mail to update proposals.
e. Emergency Preparedness committee met. Better to spread information by email, rather than by poorly attended face-to-face meetings. Suggested format - regular, bi-weekly tips sent out to e-mail list
f. Garden: Calculated $8000 in recent labour as in-kind contribution to matching grant – requested $5000. for Greenways.
g. Land Use (zoning) – What parameters for the zoning committee? Need Terms of Reference, given that the RNPlan is the policy framework.
h. Land Use (strategy) What are the effective boundaries of downtown - Vision document. Will this have an impact on current boundaries? Request that City Planning provide context and implications of such a determination if they want a neighbourhood response. Meanwhile, DM can continue to participate as a single citizen without the burden of representing the entire neighbourhood.
9. Date and time of next meeting
June 14th, 2006 at 7:00 pm at the Truth Centre (smaller meeting room on Pentrelew side)
10. Close of meeting  Motion: To adjourn (DC/HP). Carried. Meeting adjourned at 21:19