The Save Our Park Board Coalition brings together the Association Presidents Group (APG), representing 19 Vancouver Community Centre Associations; the group of 30 former Park Board Commissioners; and a group of actively engaged concerned citizens.
The City of Vancouver released the final report of the City’s Transition Working Group on Thursday, November 21st. This Working Group was tasked with developing a plan for bringing parks and recreation under the jurisdiction of City Council once the provincial government passes legislation to amend the Vancouver Charter to abolish the elected Park Board.
The Save Our Park Board Coalition is opposed to the proposal to remove the elected Park Board, the process used to date, and the recommendations in the City’s transition report. We urge Premier Eby to follow through with his assurance at the Point Grey candidate’s town hall that, if re-elected, this is not a priority for his government before the next civic election in 2026.
The Save Our Park Board Coalition has several major objections to both the process underway and the principle recommendations of the Working Group report as follows.
Undemocratic Process: First and foremost, the Coalition believes the process initiated by the Mayor last December is fundamentally undemocratic. On December 13th last, the Mayor and seven Councillors passed a resolution to ask the provincial government to amend the Vancouver Charter to eliminate the elected seven Park Board Commissioners and transfer their mandate and authority to City Councillors. When asked if he would consult the voters of Vancouver, the Mayor said he didn’t need to because his ABC party had received a majority in the 2022 municipal election.
However, removing the elected Park Board was not part of the ABC platform. The same 170,000 voters also elected the Park Board Commissioners to carry out their four-year mandate and program. The City Council majority should not negate or override the mandate given by voters to the elected Park Board. If the Mayor thinks his idea is sound, he needs to campaign for Mayor in the 2026 municipal election clearly stating his position as part of the party platform and have the voters decide the issue. Eight members of City Council do not have a mandate to abolish the Park Board elected by thousands of Vancouver voters. Fundamental democratic principles must be respected.
There is also the legal advice given to the Park Board that removing the elected Park Board mid-term could be a violation of two provisions in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Flawed Proposed New Governance Structure: The Coalition believes the recommendations in the report for a new governance structure is less democratic and more bureaucratic than the current structure with the elected Park Board. This is particularly true for community groups and organizations, such as Community Centre Associations, who work closely with the current Park Board. The recommendation is to set up a Council Sub-Committee on Parks and Recreation of five appointed City Councillors, with no decision-making authority, to advise Council. Community groups won’t be presenting and discussing their issues with the full complement of City Councillors at Council meetings, as happens now with the elected Park Board Commissioners. These five Councillors will be a go-between community groups and the full City Council. This isn’t streamlining: it’s creating a more bureaucratic, less democratic decision-making structure.
City’s Lack of Specialized Expertise: The Coalition is very concerned that the proposed governance structure will seriously undermine the expertise and specialized knowledge needed to manage Vancouver’s extensive park and recreation system. The report recognizes this problem wherein it states the Sub-Committee will address stakeholders’ needs for “some specialization of Councillors to ensure there are elected members who have a focus on, deeper knowledge of, and accountability for, parks and recreation issues.” This means there will be “some specialization”, but without approval authority, amongst five of the eleven members of Council. This is a dramatic diminution of expertise compared to the current structure where all seven Park Board Commissioners are directly involved in community engagement and decision-making.
City’s Lack of Sole Mandate for the Parks System: This concern for loss of expertise is further heightened when we remember that Park Board has a mandate to protect, preserve and develop the parks and recreation facilities loved by the citizens of Vancouver. That is their ONLY mandate. Park Board Commissioners are elected to carry out that mandate and are accountable to Vancouver citizens at election time. City Councillors have a very broad mandate managing all aspects of City operations and development beyond parks and recreation. We are deeply concerned that parks and recreation will not receive the same priority attention that it has now with the elected Board.
Citizen groups and organizations work closely with the elected Park Board Commissioners. Commissioners have the time and inclination to meet with the public and representatives of organizations to address matters of concern and to consider innovative proposals. The public have open access to bi-weekly meetings of the Board. City Councillors will have far less time to work with community groups. This will be a source of frustration for the volunteers working to improve services and programs in their communities. We fear we will be sidelined to dealing with City staff and cut off from effective communication with elected Councillors. The governance structure becomes less viable. It is a step backward, eliminating a layer of elected governance, not a step forward as the Mayor would like us to believe.
Lack of Meaningful Cost Savings: The report suggests that eliminating the elected Park Board would bring $7 million in savings per year. While this may make for a good headline, it fails to come with meaningful details on how that would be achieved and appears to be nothing more than a very rough estimate that may not be realistic. It also is a very small savings compared to the vast overall budget, yet even if achieved, would not justify the dramatic loss of democratic process of this 130 year institution.
The estimated cost savings are predicated on cutting 10 to 20 unidentified staff positions and on estimated reduced wait times when building infrastructure projects. Both staffing and infrastructure management are issues that can be addressed without eliminating this elected, effective and accountable level of governance in our city.
