The chair of the Vancouver Park Board is defending a “gag order” instructing parks staff not to cooperate with a transition team formed to abolish the elected body.
Internal city documents obtained by Global News earlier this week outlined the city’s progress on work to fold the park board under city council authority, which referenced planning challenges due to the board’s order for park staff not to cooperate with the process.
On Thursday, Park Board Chair Brennan Bastyovanszky said the order is justified, given that the city still doesn’t have the legal power to abolish the board.
“The reason why they are not wasting time and money on the transition plan is there has been no change in legislation, there has been none, and they should wait, and so should the city, until that is considered,” he said.
“Instead, they would need to do public consultation. They have done none. There are no community groups or park user groups who have come out in support of this.”
Get daily BC news
Premier David Eby has said the province is “committed” to working with the city on changes to the Vancouver charter to permit the park board’s dissolution, but not until after the provincial election.
The BC Conservatives have come out in opposition to the dissolution.
But Bastyovanszky argued that the province’s commitment to the plan was predicated on the city providing a transition plan, which it has yet to do.
He said Mayor Ken Sim has yet to provide proof of cost savings from folding the board, adding that city and parks staff have long been integrated.
“They collaborate on everything,” he said.
The city progress update highlighted areas of duplication between parks and city staff, such as greenspace and tree management, road design and maintenance and seawall maintenance.
It pointed to potential long-term integration of plaza management, bylaw enforcement and operation of bike share and e-scooter programs.
ABC Coun. Sarah Kirby-Yung told Global News earlier this week that eliminating duplication in those areas would save money that could be reinvested into parks.
“Right now you have to have two different sets of legal agreements, two different sets of bylaws to govern those,” she said. “(It) has to go to two different bodies, that just costs time and money that isn’t needed.”
The city’s park board transition team is slated to deliver a broader report on its planning, including recommendations on how the public could participate in park-related issues if they were folded under council authority, in November.