Comment history

An Open Forum for Political Discussion

About one year ago the Columbian ran an article about the local fire departments around the time that union negotiations were going on. Either the Columbian or a citizen posting a comment mentioned the call back pay firefighters received and suggested that staffing was deliberately adjusted to allow staff to collect huge amounts of overtime pay.

I was working at that time with a support staff person whose position with the fire department was eliminated. I asked if this was true. The answer to the question was that it was common for a fire fighter who needed extra money, say for a home remodel or needed to boost their pay for retirement to request someone call in sick so that they could collect the overtime.

I would not suggest that this is the majority of staff that would do this, but I think it is prevalent enough to add 25-30% of the overtime figure. Like every group, it only takes a
few to tarnish the good work of the many.

June 5, 2011 at 9:40 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Changes are coming to comments on

While I don't post but in a blue moon, I read other's that post during my lunch. Since I work for a local governemnt agency that blocks facebook I guess I will have to find something else to do during lunch.

Thanks to all of you who help balance the local issues!

May 24, 2011 at 12:56 p.m. ( | suggest removal )

Assessor backs fee for appeals

I do not have a firm opinion on whether Mr. Van Norwick will keep his campaign promises however I am impressed by the fact that he was in the City of Vancouver's Building department verifying some facts on a citizen's appeal. This was an unusual case (the property owners has been building and arguing with the city for 5-6 years) and so I imagined the appeal would not have been a slam dunk. I applaud Mr. Van Norwick willingness to get his hands dirty and digging for the true facts.

Since the other part of his campaign promises involved staffing, I doubt we will hear any details for quite a while.

February 20, 2011 at 6:35 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Moeller bill would legalize gay marriage

We really do need to kick up the search for a home out of this area! I'll just sit here and wait until a bill is passed to tell me what clothes to wear so I really won't have to think for myself

February 15, 2011 at 6:29 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Council lukewarm on paying premiums

the 1SG
"We have a few couch bunnies here that don't want their taxes raised so we FIRED 112 employees."

I just would like to clarify the slight error in this statement. 112 positons were eliminated. Most employees who held these positins have been able to go to other departments within the city so even though if you were one of the few unfortunate ones to actually walk out the door, more employees stayed than left.

December 19, 2010 at 11:48 a.m. ( | suggest removal )


No offence taken.

August 2, 2010 at 3:47 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


And on another note. Give me your real name and I would be happy to pass on my opinion that you should be heard. If you don't mind I will let staff know that you are much respected on these bloggs and it would be a good PR move to hear you out. :-). Don't know how much my opinion will count but I am known to speak pretty plainly.

August 1, 2010 at 2:51 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


ok here is my 2 cents worth. The people making most of the decisions about these projects are a relatively small group within the COV. They are not stupid, mean people, they are just from a different background than the people who either grew up here or moved out of California years ago to escape what Vancouver is becoming. They sincerely believe they are acting for the "greater" good and that those opposing this project are short sighted and don't see the "big" picture. Direct your comments right to the ones who are pushing this forward. Thayer Rougherback (sp), Pat McDonald, Brian Carlson. These managers are the ones that have more to gain when the big money comes in. I know that citizens that band together and talk to city staff in a reasonable but firm manner can make a difference. I attended a planning meeting opposing the first draft on the urban growth boundries. I don't live in the city but was Prez of a local equine group and they heard us. We filled the city chambers and the new codes are much more animal friendly than was originally put forth. The amazing thing is that I still have my job and the manager in charge of planning is our new department head. She told me that sometimes they (COV staff) get off in left field but are willing to listen and move more to the center when it is called to their attention. This is Laura Hudson so she is another one I would pay attention to.

August 1, 2010 at 2:48 p.m. ( | suggest removal )


I like to read your posts as they seem well balanced and well thought out. I hesitate to post as I have an inside to some of the decision making about the bridge, water front property ect. Hope you show up to the city council meetings to express your opinion as more and more people share them. If you want to follow the trend in policy keep an eye on the COV Transportation director that planned to retire this year and instead is heading up these large projects. Also check out the new "gate" to be purchased and installed on the pedestrian bridge....ask how much that puppy will cost. :-)

August 1, 2010 at 7:50 a.m. ( | suggest removal )

Council to hear comments on City Hall buy

It will be interesting to hear what our customers such as contractors think about going back downtown to purchase or follow up on thier permit applications. I know working in the building department that the day to day mid size plumbers, electricians and general contractors were pleased that the City of Vancouver building department moved to a central location with easy parking. It was the larger Engineering and design firms downtown that were unhappy with our move. Either way we will be making one group happier and the other frustrated, not that anyone has asked the folks that pay for the permits what they think.

June 13, 2010 at 7:54 p.m. ( | suggest removal )