An Open Letter to Kathleen Stephany

*** Update *** 

Council Agenda and documents posted tomorrow

Check out the fire post below for an update

Recently, Langley NDP candidate Kathleen Stephany has made several YouTube videos talking about crime and rail service in the Valley. We have now reviewed the statements by Ms. Stephany on this and other subjects and we are puzzled.

1. Langley MLA's Rich Coleman and Mary Polak both supported more police and more prosecutors and we got them and are getting more. The BC Liberals delivered on that promise in short order. With that in mind, how many more police and how many prosecutors will BC need to satisfy her needs, and allow her to walk the streets of Langley once again? Please tell us how many and how much that will cost in hard dollars please.

2. It seems that the official NDP platform does not address rail in the Valley whatsoever. Are you telling us that you will go against official NDP policy and move to immediately build train service throughout the Fraser Valley and out to Vancouver as the group that you protested with advocates? Please tell us clearly if you will move against official NDP policy and also let us know when we can expect the trains to operate (assuming you are elected), and also how much in hard dollars that train service will cost the taxpayers of BC.

We look forward to receiving feedback from Ms. Stephany and also from the Valley's NDP spokesperson as to their position on candidates and official platforms.

Pot Calls The Kettle....

After all these years of Kim & Bob Richter bashing ToL Councillor Jordan Bateman for his support of the BC Liberal Party, once again they do exactly what they accuse others of doing. 

Everyone is well aware of the fact that Kim Richter ran with Glen Clark's BC NDP's and always comes back around to supporting her treasured NDP friends. This provincial campaign is no exception, as Kim Richter's website started pre-election with full video coverage of Langley NDP candidate Kathleen Stephany's delegation to Township Council. An event that Stephany termed as "non-political". Stephany used this "non-political" (wink) event to grandstand against the BC Liberals and all that jazz. We'll leave it at that, as we hear the NDP camp fully knows they will loose Langley and would rather fund law suits than campaigns.  

Stephany and the Browns Pitt group all remained silent (and refrained from any letters to editors and blog posts) after the provincial government, with significant Rich Coleman advocacy, reviewed the ecological impact of using the old gravel pit. As Transportation Minister Falcon promised,  the Liberals decided to preserve the pit and not risk impact to the aquifer. Thanks Rich, its a thankless job sometimes, especially with fair weather constituents, eh?

The full press court is now viable on the Richter website with video after video of the NDP candidate and events. A loyal Richter insider held his meet & greet for the NDP candidate as well, this past weekend. Interesting that we don't see the photos or videos of Richter shmoozing with the NDP candidate as of yet.  But rest assured as evident with the website work, Richter is right there to lend her support.

Of course its fine for council members to support whichever party they wish. By why bash Bateman and others, and be a hypocrite about it all? This is an old Richter game and it just goes on and on. Her vocal (few) supporters don't see any problems with it, just as long as it is Richter and not Bateman. Wink. Wink.

So folks, The Langley Record is your ONLY independent blog in Langley Township... just kidding. We all know that MLA Rich Coleman and Mary Polak are the best darn MLA's and Ministers that Langley has ever seen and we don't intend to let them stand alone after all their hard work for this community. Certainly no rookie with twisted ethics, nor any candidate-for-hire could come anywhere close to filling the shoes of Rich and Mary. 

Keep BC Strong.  Keep loudmouth opposition politicians at bay. The NDP likes to order off the extensive provincial menus to and just like their local Political Whip, they always seem to skip out on that darn bill.    

Langley Township Fire Department

*** UPDATE *** Saturday, April 18, 2009 - ToL 2008 Fire Report Released

This Monday Township Council Receives this 2008 Fire Department Report for Fire Chief Doug Wade. The report contains a wealth of information related to our fire/first responders service to the community. 

Report Highlights:

• Call Volumes were up by 25% over 2007
• They met their commitment to respond within 8 minutes 90% of the time to areas served by fulltime firefighters.
• At the end of 2008 there were 132 paid-call firefighters and 51 career personnel
• In 2008 paid-call firefighters continued to provide the majority of emergency response to Fort Langley, Walnut Grove, Murrayville, Brookswood and Otter. Traditionally there has been a turnover rate of 10-15% within the paid-call ranks.
• In 2008 Emergency Response was a major focus of department operations with nearly 56% of calls related to medical and/or motor vehicle accidents. 
• Fire calls increased slightly from 2007. 
• Overall, the department responded to 5,083 requests for assistance in 2008, a 25% increase since 2007 and a 53% increase since 2006. 
• In the past 5 years since 2004, call volumes have increased 68%

Two Interesting Charts From This 2008 Report:

  

From Previous Post:

FIRST RESPONDERS NOT ONLY TO FIRES - As you can see from our last post, there are many opinions offered on our fire department program. In an effort to allow for more public input, we are putting up this post for all your fire department comments. 

Please be respectful in your comments and those you may disagree with. Please try to stick to facts and not speculation or rumor. We would also like to comment that although some fire fighters may have offered their personal (off-duty) time to posting some candidate signage, we see no evidence of any fire apparatus or on-duty personnel being used for this task. Unless you have pictures and evidence to prove otherwise, please refrain from any speculation.

Now with these ground rules in place, please post your comments on our fire service in the Township of Langley. Also, it would be great to hear from some full-time fire chiefs (or retired chiefs) on these issues. Commenters may want to list any qualifications they may have in this field. Post away!

Watch Those Closed Door Municipal Meetings

Recently, the Township of Langley held several closed-door meetings for the Mayor's Standing Committee on Finance. Mayor Rick Green spoke to the Bylaw/Terms of Reference that created the committee and although the Bylaw talked about all meetings being opened to the public, Green invoked a Community Charter section to substantiate the closed door meetings. 

Unlike Council that must disclose in a public meeting the broad item headings discussed (Land, Legal or Labour), the Finance Committee never did this in any public meeting thereafter. The mayor flip-flopped by calling these meetings workshops and meetings interchangeably. But we cannot be certain if ANY closed door meetings by this committee were in fact legal. The Green-Richter slate talked extensively during their campaigns about open and transparent government. These back alley meetings are not very open and transparent, are they?

Now word out of Seattle (great Seattle Times article here) is that municipalities had better be VERY careful about closed door meetings in the future. Seattle is facing a $43M shortfall in this year's budget and the mayor's office decided they should have a closed meeting with mayor and council to discuss how to deal with it. They planned to skirt quorum rules (that would then require an open public meeting) by limiting council participants to four at any one time.

"City Attorney Tom Carr said he sent an e-mail to the City Council on Friday morning. Citing attorney-client confidentiality, he declined to share the contents of his e-mail. However, the day before, he told The Seattle Times he had concerns that the meetings might violate state law.

Carr said Friday that he didn't know why council members decided to stop the private meetings, adding, "It might have been your article. It does show their commitment to try to adhere to both the letter and the spirit of the law," he said.

The state's Open Public Meetings Act requires that meetings of public governing bodies be open. The law applies to their votes — and discussions and deliberations leading up to votes.

The mayor's office and the city council defended the meetings this week, saying it was important to them to be able to speak privately about budget decisions out of the public eye."

                    -- The Seattle Times

You can read more damage control from Seattle here. Maybe we need an "Open Government group" in the Township of Langley? Perhaps the Green-Richter slate should come clean as to what was discussed at their secret budget meetings and how their proposed .93% tax increase is nothing less than acting irresponsibly with their fiduciary responsibilities to the Township of Langley and the taxpayers?