Trash talking at Vancouver Council

Duplicity abounds at the left-leaning COPE council as rifts erupt between Green and Louis

by Reed Eurchuk <reurchuk@republic-news.org>

In a recent column, Allen Garr followed COPE councillor Jim Green and gave COPE councillor Tim Louis what Garr called "a serious tune-up." Any notion of fair-handed treatment was thrown out the window by Garr in his portrayal of Louis as an embittered man who "figures he doesn't get the respect he deserves" and who "is not above seeking revenge in a most destructive and public manner." Strong words. And words which mirror Green's milder ones. Green said Louis's opinions were "inappropriate" and alleged that "you [Louis] are doing it to embarrass the mayor." What was this most "destructive and public" display that Garr alludes to?

At the January 27 th city council meeting, COPE Councillor Raymond Louie stood to propose a motion seeking an extension of a previously-approved leave for the mayor, who was on vacation. NPA councillor Ladner criticized the leave, saying that it was not on city business. In quiet, calm voice, Councillor Louis then said he agreed with Ladner, and that he would be voting against the motion.

Jim Green defends the honour of the mayor

What followed was an immediate escalation of rhetoric by Councillor Jim Green, who was beside himself to defend the honour of the mayor, whom he called "a hard working mayor" and "a leader we've never seen the likes of before."

In his very first statement, following Louis's quiet endorsement of Ladner's dissenting voice, Green railed against what he called this "atrocious statement" by Ladner, and by association, Louis. Over his next few statements, Green stated he was "totally appalled" by this "infuriating personal attack."

Revealingly, Green personalized the criticism of Campbell, acting as though it was Green himself who had been criticized. In his first comment, he began recounting how hard he, Green, works (which was never alluded to by anybody, and had no relevance to the discussion). And he couldn't let go of it. In a later comment, Green challenged the other councillors "to take me on in terms of how I stand up" as far his work habits. He then said "99 per cent of the time I'm the first councillor here and I'm here every day of the week." Green's personalization of the mild criticism of the mayor reveals Green's identification with the mayor, and suggests Green's pivotal role as Campbell's champion within the COPE caucus.

Green's other strategy was to say Louis himself had also taken a leave to go to El Salvador. There was no difference between Campbell's trip to Belize and Louis's trip to El Salvador, argued Green. It was this specious comparison that finally, after some 20 minutes of debate, during which Louis sat mute, got under Louis's skin. Louis angrily defended himself saying he was on civic business, and that while there he had met with more than five mayors and more than 50 city councillors, as well as representatives from human rights and women's groups and labour unions. But Green persisted, asking the city clerk to define what a leave on civic business consists of.

By the book, Green was right-a leave on civic business entails a council endorsement stipulating that trip as official city business, which apparently Louis did not have. But to compare a relaxing trip to Belize with a working trip to a country still in turmoil from revolution and US intervention is simply spurious. Louis said he had spoken with the mayor about making a presentation in regards to his own trip and that Campbell had agreed.

Allen Garr adopted Green's position without question in his column, writing that Louis was off "pursuing his personal political agenda in El Salvador." In fact, Garr duplicated a number of Green's points, as well as ducking his own past history of condemning such leaves when an NPA council member did the same thing.

Allen Grrrrr joins the fray.

That Garr would take offence to Louis's mild criticism of the mayor is particularly odd given the fact that Garr continually hammered on ex-NPA councillor Gordon Price's five-week leave granted near the end of his stay on Vancouver's last council. In one column, he described Price's trip as "one last slurp at the trough," and in another column, he complained of Price's "five-week vacation with pay," and in yet a third column he joked about a possible "slide presentation" of the vacation at council. If Garr found the idea of a leave for vacation offensive when Price took it, why not now with Campbell baking on a beach in Belize?

In his February 4 th column, Garr referred to Price's leave again, this time as "the most abusive request," but Garr slides quickly into a defence of the mayor. With the sound of violins clearly audible in the background, Garr wrote that Campbell had "worked on and off during the summer break in August" and "also put in time during Xmas," thereby discounting any parallel between Price's flagrant abuse and Campbell's well-earned break.

Excuse me? Undoubtedly Price too worked his share of off hours. And Price at least had a fig leaf-he was attending the Gay Games, a sports event that our city would surely like to woo. So he could easily claim to be doing some civic work.

What exactly were Green and Garr so upset about? It obviously was not Louis's mild initial objection (he subsequently changed his mind and voted for it) to an after-the-fact extension to the mayor's vacation. The principle they got so exercised about is a bogus, counterfeit copy of caucus discipline. Green is the archetype of the caucus enforcer. Green and Garr felt compelled to publicly thrash Louis for daring to voice a doubt.

That's sad. In politics, honest discipline is based on solidarity, and solidarity is one thing that is obviously lacking in the COPE caucus.

****