RGS threats: Governance, accountability

This page will include an ongoing analysis of the governance structure and accountability of Metro Vancouver and the Regional Growth Strategy. And also look at what changes might help the organization be more transparent, accountable and accessible to the public. This topic will become increasingly important IF the RGS enters into force this spring of 2011 as power is transferred from municipalities to Metro Vancouver.We will look not only at formal issues but informal institutional issues such as the organization’s stance toward public input. There is already a track record of Metro Van’s performance in consultation for the RGS so far. To begin with, here is a starter.

Note the relationship between population, land area, and voting power for each municipality. Also note that under the RGS, some land use decisions will be made by a 50%+1 vote, and some by a two-thirds vote. We will report more on that in due course.

For example, note that Vancouver has only 3.1% of the total land area, but 23.2% of the vote.

Other issues require further analysis. For example, what happens when there is a conflict of interest between the role of a director on the Metro Vancouver board, and that person’s role as an elected official from his or her own municipality?

What are the reporting responsibilities of Metro Board directors to their own municipal councils and citizens? If one municipality’s selected board members are from one sole “party,” how can other interest be represented on the Board?

To be continued….

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s