Bob Williams endorses Vancity directors and opposes Action Team's alleged inaction on the arts
A group linked for many years with the NDP could lose control of the board of Vancity, which has $14.5 billion in assets and more than 400,000 members.
The Action Team, formerly known as the Action Slate, was created in the 1980s. Former NDP cabinet minister Bob Williams was elected to the board in 1983, followed by former city councillor and future NDP cabinet minister Darlene Marzari and venture capitalist David Levi in 1984.
The following year, former Vancouver city councillor Tim Louis joined the slate, which opposed Vancity's membership in the Fraser Institute, a right-wing think tank based in Vancouver.
According to Herschel Hardin's 1996 book, Working Dollars: The VanCity Story (Douglas & McIntyre), the Action Slate attacked out-of-town lending, and kept ATM fees lower than those at the banks. Later at the behest of Levi, Vancity created the first "ethical" mutual fund in Canada.
Williams got back on the board in 2007 as an independent, and is backing three incumbent directors in this year’s election who are not members of the Action Team: Lisa Barrett, Kim Griffith, and Wendy Holm.
“I guess I’m not as rigid a partisan as I might have been at one time,” Williams told the Straight in a phone interview. “I think they have contributed substantially, and would continue to do so.”
See also
Will Vancity candidates support the Sacco arts recommendations?
Follow us on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Follow us on Google
Comments
It offers examples from the work of other cities and institutions in building on present strength. It proposes ways that Vancity, Canada's largest credit union, might take the lead in italicizing, financing and leveraging these great opportunities.
Vancity, which showed one way with its $1 million grant to the arts, now has an opportunity to show another. Wealth means a good deal more than money in the bank. It also means creativity, innovation and genius at every level. A credit union can help bring these forces together. The Sacco Report shows a powerful means of doing so.
1. Current Action Slate Chair Patrice Pratt comes from the BCGEU, and has endorsed the three Action Slate Candidates.
2. New Action Slate candidate Jan O'Brien, married to City Councillor Geoff Meggs, works full-time for the BCGEU, but never mentions this anywhere.
Voters need to know where their loyalties lie. It was disappointing to learn that Ms O'Brien had never even "heard of" the Sacco Arts Report.
The arts are a low priority with the Action Slate.
In a time when Vancity has to lay off up to 100 people because of the economy, Williams and his merry band want to add staff people to fund the arts?!
So the Action team hasn't taken a position on the matter. They also haven't said whether they support the incoming Vancouver Whitecaps team, or back funding for ice sculptures, but they're also is irrelevant.
Vancity is about community and sustainability. Pure and simple. That focus -- driven by the Action folks -- has made it one of the biggest success stories in the financial industry.
If Williams and his robots are going to spend my member money on hiring people to then fund his pet project, while members struggle with their personal finances and Vancity staff are being laid off, they've lost my vote.
North American culture has left gaping holes in its support of a cultural supporting network and it is grappling to adopt a new/old strategy for constructing a meaningful, sustainable, rewarding identity.
The Easterlin Curve demonstrates that happiness and income have a strong correlation up to $16,000 because the basic human needs must be satisfied first. But as income exceeds this, mankind begins to see income and happiness as two gradually diverging entities. People begin to search for happiness in different ways and societies become richer for this.
Vancity can fill the role of system activator in a renaissance of new support to groups and individuals that can generate a richer fulfillment and this will give a value added benefit for our members and our communities.
I am committed to finding that new future and believe that Vancity can play a pivotal role.
Kim Griffith, director, Vancity
It is the Action Slate majority that has tried to force through a big jump in their own directors fees while 100 staffers have been laid off.
It looks to this outsider that the Action Slate has become too comfortable at the trough. Years ago the Slate was about change and progress. Today it's about maintaining the status quo. That's the real lunacy, dontcha think?
If you really want to see the difference between the Williams clones and the Action folks (Legg, Maffin, and O'Brian), ask them where they stand on the proposed Directors' fee increase.
The Vancity Board that Bob Williams and his candidates were on passed a motion to ask members to approve a 33% pay increase to directors (!).
The Action Team candidates (Legg, Maffin, and O'Brian) have each said they'll vote against it. Which makes sense. We can't support Williams' plan to give him and the others a 33% pay hike when Vancity is laying its own people off!
Ask Williams and his robo-candidates if they support the fee increase or not. So far, they've either said they SUPPORT paying themselves more, or they won't say one way or the other (which, in itself, is bordering on dishonesty.)
That's a far bigger issue than hiring people to turn Vancity into an arts-funding organization, and so far I've only heard the Action slate candidates take a common-sense position.
It was only after that motion was passed that we began to see the economy crumble and decisions about laying staff had to be taken. Your comment inaccurately implies that the board made this decision with the information we have today. It's simply not possible.
I, for one, will not be using my vote to support Williams' (and his "slate") pet project that is completely outside of the scope of Vancity's commitment to community growth and sustainability.
Let's get one thing straight. The arts don't COST money. They MAKE money. In Great Britain and Italy, and probably elsewhere, the creative arts account for over 10% of the Gross Domestic Product. That's double digits! That's huge!
Recently I was lecturing a long-suffering friend about how the arts strengthen a community and bring kudos to a city, when he (mercifully) interrupted. He simply pointed out that the creative arts do all that out of next to nothing -- sometimes no more than a few pieces of paper and a pencil. Sometimes just a beautiful voice and a sidewalk.
Hmmm. Tiny investment, huge payback. I find that strangely appealing.
Wayne Richards
On a positive note, in addition to stewarding its members' assets and credit union equity during a financial crisis and recession, Vancity, with board guidance and support is embarking on a deeper wealth creation vision in 2009 (come to our AGM on April 21st to hear more!) By better deploying our core strengths and tools (after all, Vancity is a financial institution) to build community wealth, there will be many opportunities for the arts sector to access resources and strategic support from Vancity in the years ahead.
If you're a Vancity member, please make time to cast your vote!
- Virginia Weiler, current Vancity director and supporter of three very qualified and responsible board candidates: Tod Maffin, Jan O'Brien and Hugh Legg (www.voteaction.ca)
On a positive note, in addition to stewarding its members' assets and credit union equity during a financial crisis and recession, Vancity, with board guidance and support is embarking on a deeper wealth creation vision in 2009 (come to our AGM on April 21st to hear more!) By better deploying our core strengths and tools (after all, Vancity is a financial institution) to build community wealth, there will be many opportunities for the arts sector to access resources and strategic support from Vancity in the years ahead.
If you're a Vancity member, please make time to cast your vote!
- Virginia Weiler, current Vancity director and supporter of three very qualified and responsible board candidates: Tod Maffin, Jan O'Brien and Hugh Legg (www.voteaction.ca)
You propose that the Board minority has been driving the agenda of the Board majority -- better known as the Action Slate. That is absurd on its face.
Why does the Action Slate want a super-majority anyway? Aren't they satisfied with the control they already have?
It's obvious to outsiders that the Action Slate is in trouble about the directors fees. That is the only reason the new Action Slate candidates now repudiate the policy of their own majority.
As I said, it makes no sense. I am confident you will try to find a way to make it appear otherwise. Good luck!
If so, it matches other mistakes she made in her post. Many of our members are proud of Vancity's leadership in the arts. Many of our members see that support as part of a balanced agenda of good fiscal management, good staff relations, and good services for our 400,000 people.
Action Slater Jan O'Brien admitted she had never heard of the Sacco Report. At least she is honest about it. I suspect Mrs Weiler has never even read it.
Had she done so, she would appreciate the connections it makes between cultural, community and individual capital. She would support the case made for using the arts to promote wealth-building at every level.
Our credit union is not a bank. It is an economic co-operative. It is not just another business enterprise, as the Action Slate believes. It is a human enterprise. It raises its sights above the mercantile and the mundane. Or should.
The Action Slate favors the status quo, and now begs for a super-majority in order to protect their position. They have not earned it.
You tell us that Vancity is "embarking on an even deeper wealth creation vision in 2009", but that we must wait until after the election is over before we may know what this vision contains.
Why has the Action Slate majority on the current Board chosen to suppress this matter until after we have voted?
Just askin'.
Wayne Richards
Wayne, you keep twisting the facts to be incendiary, instead of engaging in rational, reasoned debate. For instance, you use phrases like "the Action Slate majority on the current Board chosen to" when you know very well the entire board votes on motions. It's clever, I'll give you that, to make it appear as if only the Action folks vote the things you dislike, but it's misleading and dishonest.
Let's get a few things clear.
First, neither Barrett, Holm, Griffith, nor Williams have told them members whether they too will support the directors' fee hike (that the board, on which THEY sat too, commended to the members). At least the Action candidates have clearly taken a position so members know what that they don't support spending in a time of layoffs.
In fact, Griffiths, Holm, and Barratt don't say much of what they'd do if elected to the board AT ALL. (Hell, Griffiths didn't even bother to submit a podcast to the members to talk about what he'd do if elected. That's just rude.)
Look, even the most uninformed person can clearly see this whole Arts thing is just a smoke-screen (faintly smelling of weed) that Williams has blown out as a way of distracting from these facts.
As to the claim that arts MAKES money, that's mostly (but not in all cases) true. However, again, you're twisting the facts. If the arts makes money, it will NOT return to Vancity. The organizations that profit are the arts groups themselves. That's not a bad thing, of course, but when Vancity is laying off 100 people, to have Holms, Griffiths, Barratt, and Williams saying they want to hire an arts staff and use members' money to fund Williams' pet project, that's simply delirious.
If you check Vancity's record, you'll find Vancity has always been a very solid supporter of the arts.
If adding some kind of special art-funding department and staff to Vancity in these times is the best idea these four have, we're all in trouble.
First, although all members on the Board vote (of course!)
it's the majority vote that carries the day. That majority is currently held by the Action Slate.
Second, I don't think the Board functions like a municipal council, where all votes are public. I think Vancity's Board functions like a provincial or federal cabinet, wherein the votes of the individual members are kept secret, and all members of the cabinet/Board are bound by the majority vote. This is the principle of cabinet solidarity, and in fact has its uses.
That said, I don't know how any particular individual voted, and neither are they allowed to tell me, so far as I know. But I do know the Action Slate has the majority at present. Action Slate policies carry the day (which is proper. They were properly elected).
The Board claims to have a sparkling new plan for the future, yet it will not release it to the general membership. To keep that plan secret requires only a majority (ie Action Slate) vote to do so, after which all Board members must stand mute.
But is this plan not a valid electoral issue? Even more to the point, is not keeping it secret an even more cogent electoral issue?
Thanks for your time, Matt.
Wayne Richards
Who are you?
Cheers!
Wayne Richards
You persist in your delusion that the Action Slate majority is actually a minority. Your bizarre notion of democracy is actually quite insulting to the Action Slate. And it doesn't disguise the fact that they have bungled the directors pay issue, and now are being attacked even by their own candidates. And by you.
Apart from the fact that you hate Bob Williams, and make excuses for the Action Slate, what do you actually believe in?
I've made it clear, for what it's worth, that the Sacco Report points the way toward a powerful intersection of new cultural, community and personal wealth. I attended his workshop at SFU, and was struck by his detailed research and bold imagination, and by precedent amply documented for the role of an enlightened credit union.
His report tells us how Vancity might lead the way to these new intersections of art and commerce, and why.
If you had troubled to read his report, you might acknowledge that Prof. Sacco's is primarily an economic analysis, inter-linking strategies of capital and its disposition at a far more subtle level than your cartoon version would have us believe.
Or, maybe you just hate art and artists too.
While the Action Slate candidates are all very fine people, I'm sure, it troubles me that, on the one hand they continue to take credit for the historical leadership that Vancity has provided and attribute that solely to the Action Slate. This does a grave disservice to the contributions of all of our past board members as well as the exemplary work of our management and dedicated staff.
Vancity is all of us. Perhaps we should highlight the words 'co-operative' and 'union' in our agenda packages to remind us that we are Vancity Credit Union, a financial co-operative. There is enough trouble and strife to deal with without adding to it at the board level. If you really must get all political and acrimonious, I'd suggest running for local government. We need people who love to work together for Vancity.
As for the claims that I support the resolution regarding the director's remuneration, I would like to see where I have done so. It must be understood that this resolution is in response to direction from the general membership to bring the issue forward for review at this AGM. (see below) The Action Slate candidates seem to think it is a Board of Directors decision to vote in favour or against this recommendation from the committee. If they had read the explanation of the ordinary resolution, available in the election bulletin, online at Vancity.com and linked to on this site, they would see that it is clearly up to the general membership in attendance at the AGM. Each director will have only have their one vote, amongst the thousands of other members'. Depending on what the membership says at the AGM, I will likely vote against it due to the poor timing as a result of the downturn since the recommendation.
I can be reached at lisa.barrett.forvancity@gmail.com
******************************************************************
The Financial Institutions Act requires that the plan for how directors of a financial institution are paid be established by a resolution voted on by its members. At the 63rd Annual General Meeting, taking place on Tuesday, April 21, 2009, members will vote on an ordinary resolution that recommends changes to directors’ remuneration.
The current director remuneration structure was approved by members in 2006, with the condition that a further review take place prior to the 2009 Annual General Meeting.
Would you care to clarify, then, on the record, whether you support the proposed Fee Increase, or whether you do not support it.
It strikes me that the Action candidates have been very honest with their belief that now is not the right time (though, like the Board prior -- on which you were a member, at the time the economy wasn't as it is now).
So. Do you support it or not?
What about your other two candidates and Bob?
Also, did you vote in favour of this suppression?
P.S. Wayne, my name is Matthew Johnson.
That should make it easy for Matthew to go back to see what I said about the AGM resolution vote, though. Pretty clear.
And it came as a surprise to those of us running as incumbents (who are their own people, not "mine" - what an odd way of putting it) that the vision was supposed to be suppressed until after the election. Each of us has been enthusiastically supporting the "Redefining Wealth" strategic vision that we came to through some very courageous visioning, mostly on the part of our senior management, BTW.
We only learned of this when we were ordered to take out any reference to this plan from our www.re-electyourboard.ca website.
The Chair of the Vancity Elections Ctte is former Chair and Action Slate member Elain Duval. It would have been her call. I suggest you ask her.
It's always a pleasure to meet a seeker of wisdom and enlightenment.
Cheers!
Wayne
So, for the record, did the board NOT recommend this be released to the members at the AGM?
This is Virginia Weiler, a current Vancity director. There is nothing "being suppressed" about Vancity's new vision, which my colleague Lisa Barrett correctly identifies as "Redefining Wealth" (and we are all very excited about the opportunities being created as a result). The vision will be officially launched to Vancity members by our CEO at our AGM in April. We do have policies that require board members to maintain confidentiality of documents reviewed at the board table; and my fellow directors running for re-election this year posted a document about Vancity's vision (perhaps not realizing it was still at the internal use stage) and so were recommended to remove it from their election website.
However, Vancity's member engagement division is preparing communications to share broadly (as well as in our annual report to be released at AGM), and members will have the chance to ask our Chair and CEO about this new vision.
And for the record, I have also read the Sacco report, attended presentations on it, and recommended that it be presented to the board. No one at our board table is "anti-arts" - we simply hold different perspectives on how to best activate Vancity's role as a financial cooperative in this and other sectors.
Even though the discussion in this forum has been a bit intense, its great to see Vancity members engaged in election issues, and my hope is that we continue to see higher voter participation. As part of a member-owned financial institution, its your right!
Best regards,
Virginia Weiler, current director supporting Maffin, Legg and O'Brien (www.voteaction.ca) for Vancity board
According to my copy, it was published 27 MONTHS ago! What has the Action Slate done since? Which of its recommendations have they enacted? Which of its principles have they adopted? What deadlines for implementation have they set?
And who have they educated concerning its re-definition of wealth and the role of Vancity in that process?
Not even their own candidates. Jan O'Brien admitted she had never heard of it.
The Action Slate has gone to sleep on this one.
Now, they want a super-majority on the Vancity Board. In my view, judging by the lazy and disdainful way they have treated the arts and the Sacco Report, they have not earned it.
It is good to see you here again. It would have been even better if you had brought some answers to some important questions.
The Action Slate majority on the present Board has chosen to suppress the Board's shiny new Plan regarding the future of Vancity. This is clearly the will of the Action Slate majority, because when the non-Action Slate Board members had it on their website they were ordered to remove it by the Elections Committee Chair, Action Slate member Elain Duval.
This Plan should have been put before the membership before the election to enable us to consider and discuss it and vote accordingly. Yet it is to be presented to us only at the Annual General Meeting, for us to rubber-stamp without even a chance to study it.
What does the Action Slate think elections are for?
This calls into question the judgement of the Action Slate majority. Why the secrecy? Just who does Vancity belong to? Why are we not to know of the Board's plans until the election is long over?
Does the Action Slate suppose we members will be grateful for having our decisions made for us so grandly, so arbitrarily?
I hardly think so. I don't think we members should give the Action Slate a supermajority on the Board. I think we should support the Board members who tried -- until they were stopped by the Action Slate -- to tell us members what the Plan was all about. Those members are:
Wendy Holm. Kim Griffith. Lisa Barrett.
You wrote: "I think we should support the Board members who tried -- until they were stopped by the Action Slate -- to tell us members what the Plan was all about."
My understanding is that actual Board votes are held in confidence.
It seems that in your desperation to get Bob's pet project (the hire staff to fund arts projects) pushed in, you're now willing to break your Director responsibilities and reveal how people voted.
So. For the record, you three, did each of you vote AGAINST its release at the AGM? (I asked Lisa this in an earlier comment, but she ignored it.)
Since you are willing to disclose how other directors voted, it seems you should be willing to be held to the same scrutiny.
Fact 1: Vancity, like everyone else, is being hit hard by the economy. So much so, that it will be eliminating more than 100 staff positions in the coming weeks and months. In other words, there's no extra money.
Fact 2: Implementing the Sacco Report will be very expensive. Bob and his team would like to take your member dollars away from Vancity's base (community and sustainability works) and spend tens of thousands of dollars on implementing this report.
For instance. These folks want you to agree to spend:
-- $60,000+ to hire an "arts advocate"
-- Spend thousands of member dollars sponsoring unknown artwork
-- Spend more than $50,000 a year for an "Artist in Residence" (come on!)
-- Cancel 20% of the funds that Vancity currently gives to community and non-profit organizations, and giving that money to a yet-to-be-determined group of arts projects.
-- Spend untold amounts of money to become a real estate developer (huh?!) of an "arts hub" on East Hastings street -- this arts hub has no goals defined, no mission, and no terms of reference.
These are all great ideas. But Vancity already has a successful and generous arts program. Vancity is laying its staff off.
This is NOT the time to divert funding away from the core initiatives (community and sustainability) which made Vancity what it is
This is NOT the time to support the Board's to increase directors' fees by 33% (only one of the four of these folks has even told the members where they stand on this; the best any of them have said is that she MIGHT vote against it)
This is NOT the time to spend more than $100,000 on an arts grant coordinator and a Vancity Artist in Residence.
I'm solidly behind the Action slate this election.
Vote for:
....... Jan O'Brian
....... Tod Maffin
....... Hugh Legg
for *responsible* management of your member dollars.
They're web site is at http://www.voteaction.ca/supporters
When you use the quote, "I think we should support the Board members who tried -- until they were stopped by the Action Slate -- to tell us members what the Plan is all about" you attribute those words to Wendy Holm, Kim Griffith, and Lisa Barrett. All three!
Those words are in fact mine. All one of me.
Here's how I reached that conclusion. It involved no breach of confidence by any Director on either side.
1. It would have taken a majority of the Board of Directors to have the plan kept secret from us members.
2. Action Slate holds just such a majority.
3. Non-Action Slate members tried to tell us about the Plan.
4. Those non-Action Slate members were ordered to remove their comments from their website.
5. That order was issued by Elections Committee Chair Elain Duval, herself an Action Slate member.
All these lead clearly to an Action Slate decision to suppress membership knowledge of the Plan until after the voting is all over.
And please, Matt. These words are mine. All one of me.
Cheers.
Wayne
And here we thought you were just being objective and fair-minded all along...
People are going to be very, very disappointed in you. I, for one, would never have guessed that you were just shilling for the Action Sleep folks. I guess I'm just naive.
According to you, it's a "great idea". Indeed it is. Everyone says so. It establishes an intersection of commerce and the arts, and a leadership role for our credit union in making it happen. Most people think that's simply smart planning.
Except the Slate you endorse. They say nothing, and do nothing. Now, to be fair, you can't have it both ways. If it is, as you say, a "great idea", then why do your friends in the majority not create a timeline for its implementation?
If it's a "great idea", wouldn't that make sense?
The Action Slate candidates -- and you too -- oppose the Action Slate majority on the issue of raising directors pay. So, really now, whose side are you on?
You want a super-majority for a Slate that has no rightful claim on such extreme power. That's no one's idea of democracy. Not even yours, one would hope.
In 2001, the NDP was reduced to just 2 seats. Gordon Campbell and the Liberals took all the rest. Everyone knows what Campbell did with his super-majority. Most of us in Vancity think his super-majority was a disaster for ordinary people, and for 99% of our members.
Now: you favor the Action Slate taking a super-majority in this election. What do you think will happen on a Board with no balance and no discourse?
It will be like Campbell and the Liberals all over again.
Do you really want that?
I believe our board needs balance, stability and experience -- especially in these tough times. I also want to see Canada's largest credit union devise a strategy which will, over time, see a great convergence of the arts and new forms of building wealth. It is a test of our future.
No super-majority can be entrusted with such a task. We need great ideas, across the spectrum. Don't you agree?
So first of all, as a Vancity member, I’d appreciate it if either Matthew or Virginia could confirm or deny that these Action Slate people presently already have a majority on the board. If they already have a majority, I’d be very concerned about giving them a bigger one. Please, could one of you answer this? I guess, Virginia, you would be best informed.
Good governance requires the expression of diverse opinions on all issues including the implementation of the Sacco report on the arts. Matthew, I agree with you when you state that it contains “great ideas”. Furthermore, no reasonable person would argue against your opinion that the cost and benefit of adopting these ideas must be balanced with those of other initiatives such as community projects and sustainability. At the same time, no reasonable person would argue that the way to arrive at the appropriate balance of these initiatives is to give one group, in this case the Action Slate, a large majority in order make the decisions. It just doesn’t make sense. Diversity is best.
In fact, these postings provide a good illustration of the importance of diversity and the complacency of majorities. For instance, Matthew, I have no idea where you’re getting your comments about Wendy Holm, Kim Griffith and Lisa Barrett being Bob Williams’ “clones” and/or “robots”, but if anything, reading these postings would suggest the Action Slate candidates would better fit the clone/robot epithet. Although you ask Lisa Barrett to speak for all three candidates, she can’t because they are all independent. Bob Williams isn’t speaking for them either. These candidates voice their own opinions for themselves. Surely we can agree that this is good. On the other hand, we’ve yet to hear from the Action Slate candidates. Instead, Virginia Weiler, an Action Slate board member, writes saying she’s supporting other Action Slate candidates instead of the present board members Wendy Holm, Kim Griffith and Lisa Barrett who are running for re-election. I’d rather hear from the Action Slate candidates themselves instead of from an established Slate director but this is typical of a complacent majority.
On a very positive note, I must say that I was very happy to read Lisa Barrett’s posting. She acknowledges that the Action Slate candidates are very fine people but expresses her concern about the Action Slate taking more credit than they deserve – another thing typical of a complacent majority. Like other independent voices, Lisa gives credit where it’s due. Likewise, I was happy to read Virginia Weiler’s second posting which followed Lisa’s. In it, she was much more positive about the way the board members are accomplishing things together with their “different perspectives” than she was in her first posting. I was much encouraged by both these women’s comments and feel they reflect that the present board is well balanced and can work well together. I, for one, don’t want to upset that balance.
I really wasn’t sure who I would vote for until reading these postings about this article. Now I’m pretty sure I’ll be voting for independent voices and not the Action Slate. It’s too risky to change in troubling financial times. Besides, I believe a couple of weeks ago, the Vancouver Sun had an article about how Vancity made a profit last year. Pretty good considering the year it was! This gives me pretty good confidence in the Vancity board as it is, so I think I’ll be voting for Wendy Holm, Kim Griffith and Lisa Barrett.
Stephen Crozier