The event was supported by SFU’s Vancity Office of Community Engagement, and a crack team of event staff and technicians. Additional sponsorship support from the newly minted Urbanarium Society.

Each and every of the 49 candidates running for Mayor and Council were invited to participate in the debate. Of these, 31 candidates indicated they would attend, and a grand total of 27 showed up on event day. After nearly three hours of debate, the 2014 Last Candidate winner was declared: Andrea Reimer (Vision Vancouver). The runner up was Pete Fry (Green Party).

The event saw a total of five rounds of debate. Candidate names were randomly drawn in sets of three or four from a bingo drum, and each candidate was given at least one chance to answer a question from the Panel of Inquisition (Megaphone’s Jackie Wong, CTV’s Jon Woodward, and Metro’s Emily Jackson). Each set saw the top answers earn a pass to the next round, creating a successively smaller pool of debaters as the day unfolded.

The event was MC’d by Mark Busse, and featured musical support by houseband, The New Shackletons. Professional gong player Kathy Cameron (Soul of Sound) helped to let candidates know when they had run overtime.

The following provides a breakdown of the different rounds and sets. Video from each of the rounds will be available shortly.

Round 1 – Nine sets of three contestants

• 60 seconds per answer
• Two passes awarded per set
• Judging by Panel of Inquisition

Set 1.1 – Melissa DeGenova (NPA), Colin Shandler (Ind.), and Rick Orser (IDEA). [DeGenova and Orser move to Round 2].

Set 1.2 – Anthony Guitar (Ind.), Cherryse Kaiser (Ind.), and Jeremy Gustafson (Cedar). [Guitar and Kaiser move to Round 2].

Set 1.3 – Meynard Aubichon (STOP), Ludvik Skalicky (Ind.), Glen Chernen (Cedar).[Aubichon and Skalicky move to Round 2].

Set 1.4 – Adriane Carr (Green), Niki Sharma (Vision), Gayle Gavin (COPE).
[Carr and Gavin move to Round 2].

Set. 1.5 – David Angus (Ind.), Nicholas Chernen (Cedar) and RJ Aquino (OneCity).

[Aquino and Chernen move to Round 2].

Set 1.6 – Jesse Johl (Vancouver 1st), Andrea Reimer (Vision), Audrey “sχɬemtəna:t” Siegl (COPE).
[Johl and Reimer move to Round 2].

Set 1.7 – Bob Kasting (Ind.), Mike Hansen (Ind.), and George Affleck (NPA).

[Hansen and Affleck move to Round 2].

Set 1.8 – Mark Boyer (Ind.), Rob McDowell (NPA), and Sid Chow Tan (COPE).

[McDowell and Chan move to Round 2].

Set 1.9 – Pete Fry (Green), Suzanne Scott (NPA), and Keith Higgins (COPE).

[Fry and Higgins move to Round 2].

Round 2 – Six sets of three contestants

• 60 seconds per answer
• 2 passes awarded per set
• Judging by audience (noise meter)

Set 2.1 - Ludvik Skalicky (Ind.), RJ Aquino (OneCity), Andrea Reimer (Vision).

[Aquino and Reimer move to Round 3].

Set 2.2 – Melissa DeGenova (NPA), Rick Orser (IDEA), Rob McDowell (NPA).

[DeGenova and McDowell move to Round 3].

Set 2.3 – Anthony Guitar (Ind.), Cherryse Kaiser (Ind.), Keith Higgins (COPE).

[Guitar and Higgins move to Round 3].

Set 2.4 – Adriane Carr (Green), Jesse Johl (Vancouver 1^st), Nicholas Chernen (Cedar).

[Johl and Chernen move to Round 3].

Set 2.5 – Mike Hansen (Ind.), Sid Chow Tan (COPE), Meynard Aubichon (STOP).

[Hansen and Tan move to Round 3]

Set 2.6 - Gayle Gavin (COPE), George Affleck (NPA) and Pete Fry (Green).

[Gavin and Fry move to Round 3].

Round 3 – Three Sets of four contestants

• 2 passes awarded per set
• 60 seconds per answer
• Judging by audience (noise meter)

Set 3.1 – RJ Aquino (OneCity), Andrea Reimer (Vision), Gayle Gavin (COPE), Mike Hansen (Ind.)

[Aquino and Reimer move to Round 4]

Set 3.2 – Rob McDowell (NPA), Melissa DeGenova (NPA), Pete Fry (Green), Anthony Guitar (Ind.)

[McDowell and Fry move to Round 4].

Set 3.3 – Jesse Johl (Vancouver 1^st), Nicholas Chernen (Cedar), Sid Chow Tan (COPE), Keith Higgins (COPE).

[Johl and Chernen move to Round 4].

Round 4 – Two sets of three contestants

• 1 pass awarded per set
• 90 seconds per answer
• Judging by audience (noise meter)

Set 4.1 – Andrea Reimer (Vision), Jesse Johl (Vancouver 1^st), RJ Aquino (OneCity)

[Reimer moves to Final Round]

Set 4.2 – Pete Fry (Green), Nicholas Chernen (Cedar), Rob McDowell (NPA)

[Fry moves to Final Round]

Round 5 (Final Round) – One set of two contestants

• 1 winner
• 120 seconds per answer
• Judging by audience (noise meter)

Set 5.1 – Andrea Reimer (Vision), Pete Fry (Green

[Reimer wins Last Candidate Standing]

There’s an interesting motion on notice that will be discussed at tomorrow’s City Council meeting. Aimed at “Improving Transparency and Public Access to Council Voting Records,” it’s being put forward by Councillor Adriane Carr.

If passed, the motion would direct City staff to provide a better recording of the various votes that take place in Regular Council meetings, Standing Committee meetings and Public Hearings – in particular “specifying which members voted in favour, voted in opposition, or were recused, on leave, or absent/out of chamber.” Carr’s motion further asks that this information be made available, not only in the minutes of each of the meetings, but also through the City’s Open Data portal.

This would mark a small improvement for the minutes of the various Council meetings. Currently, the City’s Procedure Bylaw only require the City Clerk to record the names of Council members who vote in opposition to a motion. Given that there are only 11 people sitting around the table (1 Mayor and 10 Councillors), the math isn’t particularly onerous. Absences are also recorded elsewhere in each set of meeting notes. But that being said, the additional clarity around the ‘yeas and nays’ can’t hurt things. And for that reason, we can definitely support the first part of the motion.

Perhaps the bigger question that arises from this proposal surrounds the potential format of summary records that may be made available on the Open Data Portal. We note a small concern around the idea that aggregate data – what we assume will be tables of vote numbers – could be available for download without the sort of broader context you get in the full meeting notes.

We like the ability to crunch numbers, so we get the appeal of data sets like this. We are also big supporters of anything that makes the democratic process more transparent.

At the same time, we feel that it’s important to flag a potential downside to this – that simplified tables of voting data could, inadvertently, provide fodder for overly simple analyses of voting decisions. Voting records alone, only tell part of the story in any Council debate.

Should the motion pass, we hope, at the very least, that there will be enough contextual information in the data tables (including links back to the individual sets of minutes and meeting notes, the wording of the various items being voted on), to enable the data to be used in the richest fashion possible.

None of the concerns we raise are intended to detract from an otherwise useful motion. We do, however, feel they’re important to raise. They’re offered in the spirit of constructive feedback.

POSTSCRIPT. Another data-related consideration: if you’ve ever read Council minutes, or attended a Council meeting, you’ll know that lots motions contain amendments, slight modifications, larger amendments to amendments, and so on. Each of these gets voted on… which can create a challenging voting ‘narrative’ to follow – even with the complete minutes in front of you! An Open Data initiative that potentially modifies the voting record for the Open Data portal will needs to account for this. Will all votes be disseminated, or only the final ‘core’ vote on a given issue?