In studying the oil terminal decision timeline, I wondered what happened prior to 2012 that would lead Port of Vancouver commissioners to consider this kind of terminal in the first place. The Port of Vancouver has on its website a vision, mission statement and a detailed strategic plan. However, the strategic plan only addresses environmental issues in general terms. The plan has no statement about their commitment to the community’s involvement in decision-making. Having been elected to represent the people, I would have expected some set of guidelines, determined by commissioners and the public together, to define the kinds of businesses that should be sought for our port. I found none.
At some point, there should have been well-publicized open meetings with the community to formulate such guidelines. Do the port commissioners want us to believe that they did not know that the environment was a controversial issue in 2012?
I believe that the port commissioners knew that bringing this type of business to the port would be controversial and so kept these negotiations private as long as possible. They may have followed the barest letter of the law concerning open meetings but did not follow the spirit of the law. The people were never allowed a role in this decision-making process. Our commissioners have failed in their duty to represent the will of the people. They and the port CEO should be immediately removed from office and this fraudulently signed lease cancelled.
Judy Heath
Vancouver
