Gibsons council is taking another look at how it handled the decision to proceed with plan B as the preferred Gospel Rock neighbourhood plan option.
At Tuesday's meeting, council voted unanimously to release the minutes of the Nov. 4, 2008 closed committee of the whole meeting and rescinded the motion of the Nov. 4 council meeting that stated "that council choose plan B as the preferred Gospel Rock neighbourhood plan to be further refined by the consultants."
This motion was voted three to two on Nov. 4, with Mayor Barry Janyk and councillors LeeAnn Johnson and Bob Curry in favour and Coun. Chris Koopmans and former Coun. Gerry Tretick opposed. Koopmans and Tretick voted against because they felt proper procedures were not followed and the process was being pushed through too quickly without more public discussion.
At the Nov. 18, 2008 council meeting, the issue of Gospel Rock was brought up again for discussion by council and a number of questions were raised regarding the decision that was voted on.
"The primary concern was regarding the process and if it was done in a manner that could subject the Town to a process challenge," said chief administrative officer Paul Gipps. "I contacted our solicitor and sought advice in this regard."
Gipps said based on that information he recommended council take the appropriate action of rescinding the motion.
"The rescinding of the motion and the release of the closed meeting minutes will allow council to restore the status quo and reset the process to a point where the Town may consider options for Gospel Rock and not be subject to a procedural fairness challenge," said Gipps. "I would like to do further research into procedural fairness to this process and provide options for council's consideration prior to moving forward."
During an inquiries session Tuesday night, several questions from the gallery were posed to council.
Resident Suzanne Senger asked who brought forward the legal challenge and on what grounds, to which Gipps restated that it was council who brought the matter forward.
"It was brought up by council that this could happen and in order to prevent such a challenge, we reviewed our own process and it was determined that we should do something differently," Gipps said.
Coast Reporter asked Janyk, Johnson and Curry whether they regretted the decision made on Nov. 4. Janyk declined to answer, but in a follow-up email to Coast Reporter Wednesday morning, he did provide comment.
"Council doesn't dwell on regrets. A progressive council recognizes where prudent judgment should be applied and then acts," Janyk wrote. "There is little time for reflection in the political world, unfortunately. The demands propel us forward. Council does not wish to expend time and resources on possible legal challenges to its work, so we will revisit the process and we will satisfy the community we have given all parties fair opportunity to hear - and be heard - and council likewise.
"Council looks forward to meeting with the select committee and all the property owners in a committee of the whole at the earliest possible time," Janyk said.
At the end of Tuesday's meeting, Koopmans said he was hopeful that something like this would never happen again.
"It's a shame that a public process was polluted with a political process," said Koopmans, reading from a prepared statement. "I felt the public process should come first, before we made a decision, and that did not happen, and I'm sorry that did not happen for our community. Unfortunately that decision divided us and hurt our reputation. When I sat in that gallery as a member of the public, one of the things I consistently heard was our public process was awesome. This decision has put a huge black eye on the Town. One thing I can assure you is that I will continue to hold this council accountable and I hope this incident will never happen again."
