Post by John Zeger on Aug 11, 2006 12:58:21 GMT -5
It was recently announced that Mary Pynenburg, former planning director in New Westminster, will become the new Director of Planning in Kelowna. Hired by city manager Ron Mattiussi , Pynenburg has excellent qualifications for the position by virtue of her education and experience. However, while in her position as planning director in New Westminster she was embroiled in considerable controversy and faced allegations of conflict of interest for soliciting campaign contributions from members of the development community for her candidacy for Member of Parliament in 2000 while still serving as planning director in New Westminster. A consultant hired by the mayor and council of that city decided that it was not a conflict of interest for an employee of the city to run for office according to New Westminster city manager Paul Daminato as reported by the Kelowna Daily Courier.
Although Pynenburg denied ever being in conflict of interest, it appears that she never denied soliciting campaign contributions from members of the development community. After The Royal City Record, a New Westminster newspaper, published a story on the controversy, Pynenburg issued a statement saying that her campaign activities had been conducted properly. In the statement she wrote "As I am an architect and planner, a number of my friends are architects and planners. It should surprise no one that I have asked them to support my campaign." (A link to the complete article from the Royal City Record appears below as well as an opinion by blogger Robert Burnaby.) It was also reported that she fraternized with members of the development community having been invited to a Christmas reception of the Urban Development Institute in Vancouver in December 2005.
This brings me to the question of whether it was correct for city manager Ron Mattiussi to hire Mary Pynenburg as Kelowna's new planning director and what kind of planning director she will make here? Ideally, a planning director should not be influenced by personal connections to developers in order that they may carry out their responsibilities with a maximum amount of professionalism and objectivity. The close connections that Tynenburg had with the development community in New Westminster and that city planners have with developers generally brings that into question. Take for example former Kelowna planning manager Andrew Bruce becoming Vice President of Renaissance Development Corp after serving with the city for 14 years. Also, on an internet forum one participant described Tynenburg as being "pro-development" and that she "has not been accessible, nor consultative when tensions between developers and residents arise."
Will Mary Tynenburg maintain an objective stance when reviewing development proposals as Kelowna planning director? I will let you decide that for yourself. As for me, I think that Kelowna could have done better.
www.royalcityrecord.com/issues04/022204/news/022204nn3.html
burnabypolitics.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_burnabypolitics_archive.html
(scroll down to "Ethics, Accountability Huge Challenges for Local Liberal Pynenburg)
www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/001056.html
Although Pynenburg denied ever being in conflict of interest, it appears that she never denied soliciting campaign contributions from members of the development community. After The Royal City Record, a New Westminster newspaper, published a story on the controversy, Pynenburg issued a statement saying that her campaign activities had been conducted properly. In the statement she wrote "As I am an architect and planner, a number of my friends are architects and planners. It should surprise no one that I have asked them to support my campaign." (A link to the complete article from the Royal City Record appears below as well as an opinion by blogger Robert Burnaby.) It was also reported that she fraternized with members of the development community having been invited to a Christmas reception of the Urban Development Institute in Vancouver in December 2005.
This brings me to the question of whether it was correct for city manager Ron Mattiussi to hire Mary Pynenburg as Kelowna's new planning director and what kind of planning director she will make here? Ideally, a planning director should not be influenced by personal connections to developers in order that they may carry out their responsibilities with a maximum amount of professionalism and objectivity. The close connections that Tynenburg had with the development community in New Westminster and that city planners have with developers generally brings that into question. Take for example former Kelowna planning manager Andrew Bruce becoming Vice President of Renaissance Development Corp after serving with the city for 14 years. Also, on an internet forum one participant described Tynenburg as being "pro-development" and that she "has not been accessible, nor consultative when tensions between developers and residents arise."
Will Mary Tynenburg maintain an objective stance when reviewing development proposals as Kelowna planning director? I will let you decide that for yourself. As for me, I think that Kelowna could have done better.
www.royalcityrecord.com/issues04/022204/news/022204nn3.html
burnabypolitics.blogspot.com/2006_01_01_burnabypolitics_archive.html
(scroll down to "Ethics, Accountability Huge Challenges for Local Liberal Pynenburg)
www.publiceyeonline.com/archives/001056.html