Transparency and Public Engagement

I will work for District processes that are open, fair and understandable—where residents can find the information they need, participate while meaningful choices remain open, and see what was decided, why, and how public input was considered.

The time allowed for public review should reflect the complexity, scale and potential impacts of a proposal—not simply satisfy a minimum number of days.

Before Council advances a major proposal:

• residents should have enough time to review the material, ask questions and receive meaningful answers;
• Council should have the information needed to understand the consequences; and
• decisions should be postponed when significant information is missing or important questions remain unanswered.

Major last-minute additions or substantive agenda changes should be reserved for genuinely urgent circumstances and clearly explained.

Public engagement should occur while residents still have a meaningful opportunity to influence the outcome.

For major community-wide issues, town halls or similar forums can help ensure that residents and Council hear the same presentations, questions and answers. Applicant-led meetings may be useful, but they should supplement—not replace—impartial District-led engagement.

Where provincial legislation limits formal hearings or consultation, the District should still use lawful alternatives to hear from residents. The legal minimum should not become West Vancouver's standard for public engagement.

Residents should be able to see not only that engagement occurred, but what people actually said and whether it affected the outcome.

Reports summarizing engagement should clearly identify:

• who participated and how;
• the principal views and concerns expressed;
• what changed because of the feedback; and
• why significant concerns or alternatives were not accepted.

Survey results should distinguish clear support from qualified support, uncertainty and disagreement rather than combining different responses into a broad claim of “general support.”

Major staff reports should make the choices and trade-offs understandable.

They should include a plain-language summary and clearly identify the objective, relevant evidence, realistic alternatives, costs, risks and potential negative impacts—as well as the consequences of proceeding or not proceeding.

Residents and Council should not have to search through lengthy reports to determine what the real choices are.

Residents should be able to follow an issue from beginning to end.

I would support:

• one organized webpage for each major issue, linking related reports, presentations, minutes, correspondence and decisions;
• a searchable archive of Council agendas, packages, minutes and videos;
• an up-to-date map of major development applications, including status and upcoming decision dates; and
• a staff directory with names, job titles, responsibilities and contact information.

Important information should remain accessible after a decision is made so residents can understand how an issue evolved and what Council ultimately decided.

Correspondence to Mayor and Council on public matters should be searchable and preserved as part of the public record. Submissions should normally identify the writer by name and civic address, while personal contact information and anything legally required to remain private should be redacted consistently.

Closed meetings should be used only where confidentiality is genuinely necessary and legally required. The District should identify the basis for closing a meeting, keep as much business as possible in public, and release decisions and records once confidentiality is no longer required.

I support reasonable service standards for response times, clearer responsibility for answering questions, and public reporting on performance and delays based on user experience, not staff self-reporting.

I also support greater transparency about lobbying and organized advocacy efforts to influence municipal decisions. Residents should be able to see who is meeting with municipal decision-makers and what issues they are trying to influence, while protecting privacy and excluding routine service requests, requests for information and personal matters.