The media
coverage of the COPE nomination meeting held on September 18 was (in my view)
generally quite good. However, their analysis, while not as wild or factually
questionable as some of the bloggers, left something to be desired.

Although the
media presented the overall results and numbers correctly (as noted below), I
found their headlines and analyses of David Cadman’s failure to secure one of
the three nominations available, at odds with certain facts.

As the media
reported, only 3 nominees for City Council were to be elected,   and there were 614 ballots cast.  In most of the articles, it appeared as if
there were only four candidates for the 3 spots, instead of the six that
actually ran.  Could be that this was
done to make Cadman’s loss appear more dramatic, as suggested by some of the
headlines?  

It is also
telling to me that in analyzing the results, there was no reference to the fact
that Cadman’s loss by 7 votes to Aquino and 36 votes to Louis represented less
than 2% and 6% of the total vote respectively. Or, that the next closest
contender Terry Martin was 69 votes, more than 10% of the total vote behind
him.  In fact, although Cadman lost his
bid for nomination, he had the support of over half the membership who
voted.  Folks I talk to who read about
the nomination results in the media have been stunned when I point that out to
them.

Here are the
results, so you can do the math yourself: Ellen Woodsworth, an incumbent
councillor, topped the poll with 534 votes, former city Councillor Tim Louis
came in second with 345 votes, and first-time candidate RJ Aquino took the
third and last spot with 316. Coming in fourth with 309 votes, and failing to
secure a nomination was David Cadman, a long-time incumbent councillor.  The fifth and sixth place finishers were
Terry Martin with 240 vote and Colin Desjarlais with 98 votes.

David Cadman should be praised
instead of flayed

I think it
is shameful that some media and bloggers have used David Cadman’s nomination
loss as an opportunity to denigrate him and recycle some of the criticisms that
were rejected by a majority of Voters in the last civic elections, when they
re-elected Cadman.

David Cadman
worked hard for the citizens of Vancouver, studied the weekly agenda’s
of council, thoughtfully considered the business that came before council, and
did his best to represent us.  I know
this from attending weekly caucus meetings with him in mornings before city
hall is even open, and evenings when others are watching hockey games
or socializing with family and friends.

 Of course there are any number of reporters
who in the course of their work have (on many occasions) over the past three
years contacted Cadman early in the morning, late at night, on weekends, and
during meal times  for his comments or
insights on a story. I hope at least one of them might have the decency to set
the record straight.

In the
meantime – I say to David, thank you on behalf of the many of us who appreciate
your years of dedication and service to the citizens of Vancouver.