u/FrazerJohnson13

Polls are open at Eagle Ridge Community Centre today from 8am to 8pm. Get out and vote! Here’s who I’m voting for in this election, and why.

FOR COUNCIL:

Kimberley Guiry – incumbent Councillor Guiry is someone for whom I have an incredible amount of respect, and who I’m proud to call a friend. Over the past four years, I have watched Councillor Guiry bring an inclusive, compassionate approach to Langford’s governance that is rooted in family and community. Two specific items that Councillor Guiry brought forward this term that stood out to me were in the first half of the term.

• In March 2023, she moved that Council remove the artificial turf requirements from the City’s subdivision and development servicing bylaw. Fake turf was no longer required to be installed on Langford’s boulevards.
• In February 2024 during budget deliberations, she moved to end the subsidization of taxes from the City’s general amenity reserve fund. These dollars would instead be used for sidewalk infill in order to create safe routes to schools.

Kimberley Guiry has been incredibly involved this term, serving on many internal and external committees and boards. A few of these include the Sustainable Development Advisory Committee, as Board Chair of West Shore Parks & Recreation Society, and as Vice Chair of the Victoria Family Court and Youth Justice Committee.

Kimberley Guiry's campaign website

Colby Harder – I voted for then-newcomer Colby Harder in 2022, and she has earned my vote again as incumbent Councillor Harder seeking re-election in 2026. I’ve had the benefit of seeing Councillor Harder’s thoughtful approach close-up while serving with her on the Community Advisory Committee, and I’ve seen her consistently champion community-minded initiatives in the areas of parks, active transportation, and overall city planning.

Items that resonated with me that Councillor Harder brought forward this term include her work with the former owners of Woodlands Park to help bring their vision to reality, culminating in the City acquiring one of the largest remaining natural spaces in the downtown core which will serve as a park for all residents to access and enjoy for generations to come. I also appreciate her advocacy and work to bring in the e-bike and e-scooter sharing program to Langford in order to enhance the accessibility and use of alternative modes of transportation to enable more people to get around the city without a personal vehicle.

Colby Harder's campaign website

Mary Wagner – incumbent Councillor Wagner has impressed me this term with her tenacious desire to understand the details and impacts of the decisions that come before Council, her genuine openness to hearing feedback from all corners of the community, and her unwavering commitment to good governance decisions even when faced with polarizing issues.

Throughout the term, Mary has advocated especially hard for progress in the areas of protecting the natural environment in Langford, as well as being a champion of the City’s construction impact mitigation strategy. These efforts have helped bring to fruition important planning and policy changes including the Urban Forest Management Plan and the Community Standards Bylaw and accompanying Good Neighbour Policy.

Mary Wagner's campaign website

Keith Yacucha – incumbent Councillor Yacucha gets my vote for his unapologetic approach to evidence-based decision-making and data-driven governance. He is another Councillor that I’ve had a close-up view of while serving on the Community Advisory Committee, of which he has been the Chair for most of the term. Councillor Yacucha’s economics and public policy background make him well-suited to continue serving Langford residents in a way that appreciates the big picture and long-term impacts of Council’s decisions.

Councillor Yacucha has consistently advocated for issues that are important to me – long-term fiscal sustainability, reviews of facilities and services to ensure they continue to provide value to Langford residents now and in the future, and investing in areas that had suffered from years of underfunding like Langford Fire Rescue.

Keith Yacucha's campaign website

Tanya Sunshine – a newcomer as a candidate, but far from a new voice in Langford politics. I appreciate Tanya Sunshine putting her name forward and I am excited to support her as a candidate, both with my endorsement and my vote. Tanya has been advocating for good governance solutions for years in Langford. I fully support her desire to continue this work in a more direct role at City Hall. I think Tanya will make a great Councillor and I hope to see her elected later this month. Elements of Tanya’s platform that have stuck out to me include annual town halls for the City to hear more directly from a broad spectrum of residents, and her desire to bring in pragmatic solutions like optimizing traffic signal coordination from the Transportation Master Plan to help improve how we all move around the City.

Tanya Sunshine's campaign website

Trevor Hinton – another newcomer as a candidate, and admittedly one that I have less exposure to than the others on my list of Council choices. I was impressed by Trevor’s enthusiasm during the West Shore Chamber of Commerce all candidates event. His optimism and desire to contribute to Langford came through clearly.

Trevor strikes me as a less polished and experienced candidate in the local political sphere, but I think his arts and culture background and his outside perspective would be a welcome addition to round out the Council table. Trevor's platform includes a desire to establish Langford as a thriving centre for arts and culture in order to create opportunities for local artists to have their work seen and experienced right here at home. I look forward to Trevor’s fresh perspective should he be elected to Council.

Trevor Hinton's campaign Facebook page

FOR MAYOR:

Scott Goodmanson – I am voting for incumbent Mayor Scott Goodmanson. The mayoral vote is interesting in that it is a rematch of the 2022 election, only this time we have the benefit of seeing how Mayor Goodmanson has grown into the role during his term. And he has grown into the role, not only at City Hall and during Langford Council proceedings, but also through his considerable work with regional partners at the Capital Regional District. Mayor Goodmanson has been actively involved at the CRD, has served as Vice-Chair and Acting Chair of the Capital Regional Hospital District, and has been on multiple other CRD committees representing the City of Langford.

I’ll be honest in that my vote for Mayor is also based on the alternative. I voted for Scott Goodmanson in 2022 because I did not want the former Mayor to be re-elected. I am voting for Scott Goodmanson in 2026 partly for the same reason, but also because I feel that he has brought a more open and inclusive style of governance to City Hall that is what I want as a resident. I’m voting for Scott Goodmanson so that Langford continues to move forward, not backward.

Scott Goodmanson's campaign website

Polls are open for advance voting today, October 7th at Eagle Ridge Community Centre until 8pm. Advance voting is also taking place next Wednesday, October 14th from 8am to 8pm. General voting day is October 17th with polls open from 8am to 8pm.

VOTE!

I made a recent post about Langford Council meetings which looked at the attendance record of former Mayor Stew Young in comparison to that of current Mayor Scott Goodmanson. That post also included meeting duration info for 5 separate Council terms going back to 2008.

This post is a closer look at Council meeting durations, and what they say about the different Councils’ approach to governance.

It’s immediately clear is that Council meeting durations have grown longer over time. The biggest increases occurred half-way through the 2018-2022 Council term, and in the current 2022-2026 Council term. While meetings in the 2011-2014 Council term averaged only 26 minutes in duration, since 2021 that average has been over 2 hours in duration.

But why is that? And what does it say about the way Councils have carried out their governance roles?

If you’ve ever watched any of the old videos of Langford Council meetings that have been posted online, you’ve probably seen Stew Young’s Council voting on bylaw after bylaw in rapid succession, speed-running through the agenda items with no discussion or debate, or even looking up at the Council table. This was a real phenomenon, and although meetings prior to 2021 do not have archived videos, the evidence is clear enough in the meeting minutes that this was more than a one-off exception to the norm.

Some examples of Langford Council meetings throughout the years:

• October 21, 2013: 1 speaker in public participation, 1 development variance permit, 2 committee resolutions, 4 staff reports, 2 correspondence items, 6 bylaws and an in-camera session. 18 motions. Meeting duration: 5 minutes.
• April 22, 2014: 1 development variance permit, 3 committee resolutions, 4 staff reports, 4 bylaws and an in-camera session. 15 motions. Meeting duration: 4 minutes.
• October 20, 2014: 1 development variance permit, 3 staff reports, 3 correspondence items, 5 bylaws and an in-camera session. 16 motions. Meeting duration: 5 minutes.
• September 24, 2018: 2 committee resolutions, 2 bylaws. 6 motions. Meeting duration: 1 minute.
• September 26, 2018: 3 staff reports, 2 correspondence items, 3 bylaws. 9 motions. Meeting duration: 2 minutes. Meeting was held at 8:00am.

Every single motion in the meetings above was carried unanimously. No dissent, no amendments, no time for meaningful discussion or debate. 5 meetings in 17 minutes, 64 unanimous motions. And although Stew Young himself had a spotty attendance record, he was in attendance and chairing all of these meetings.

Is this what open and transparent governance looks like to you? Does it give you any insight into Council’s decision-making, or why the former Mayor and members of Council voted the way they did? It doesn’t do any of that for me. It looks like a box-ticking exercise done to formalize decisions that have already been pre-determined, outside of the public eye.

The Office of the Ombudsperson has an excellent guide on open meetings. One excerpt from that guide that speaks to my last point above is as follows:

>The open meetings rule is not met if there is a later public vote on a matter that has been inappropriately discussed and materially advanced in private. In such cases, the public is still “deprived of the opportunity to observe… decision-making work.”

I don’t believe Stew Young performed in a way that even approached the requirements for open meetings, or the concept of transparent governance. How would that even be possible when voting your way headlong through an agenda without a word of discussion?

Beginning in 2021, several factors contributed to Council meetings getting longer, with more public participation and more discussion at the Council table. These included:

1. Meetings started to be live streamed, with archived recordings made available online. This came after public scrutiny, accusations of secrecy, and an initial in-camera vote not to live stream meetings.
2. Councillors Lillian Szpak and Denise Blackwell “broke” from Stew Young’s majority on Council and began regularly speaking and voting against motions brought forward at the Council table.
3. Public scrutiny of Langford Council’s actions increased through the emergence of social media groups like Langford Voters for Change. Pushback increased, and the public became more engaged.

These all occurred in early 2021, which is the year the average length of Council meetings doubled.

The current Langford Council conducts its business at the Council table in a way that is nothing like the Stew Young years. Debates, discussions, and questions to staff or presenters take place openly and in full view of the public. Amendments and split votes are far more frequent. The meetings are longer because this Council follows not only the letter but the spirit of the rules on open meetings. This is open governance and increased transparency into Council decision-making.

I absolutely do not want to see Langford’s Mayor and Council go back to the old ways of doing business. I don’t think anyone should want that. Langford residents deserve better.

Source data:

Google drive with Langford Council meeting minutes

Excel file with Langford Council meeting attendance and duration

Excel file with Langford Council motions and voting record

I made a recent post about Langford Council meetings which looked at the attendance record of former Mayor Stew Young in comparison to that of current Mayor Scott Goodmanson. That post also included meeting duration info for 5 separate Council terms going back to 2008.

This post is a closer look at Council meeting durations, and what they say about the different Councils’ approach to governance.

It’s immediately clear that Council meeting durations have grown longer over time. The biggest increases occurred half-way through the 2018-2022 Council term, and in the current 2022-2026 Council term. While meetings in the 2011-2014 Council term averaged only 26 minutes in duration, since 2021 that average has been over 2 hours in duration.

But why is that? And what does it say about the way Councils have carried out their governance roles?

If you’ve ever watched any of the old videos of Langford Council meetings that have been posted online, you’ve probably seen Stew Young’s Council voting on bylaw after bylaw in rapid succession, speed-running through the agenda items with no discussion or debate, or even looking up at the Council table. This was a real phenomenon, and although meetings prior to 2021 do not have archived videos, the evidence is clear enough in the meeting minutes that this was more than a one-off exception to the norm.

Some examples of Langford Council meetings throughout the years:

• October 21, 2013: 1 speaker in public participation, 1 development variance permit, 2 committee resolutions, 4 staff reports, 2 correspondence items, 6 bylaws and an in-camera session. 18 motions. Meeting duration: 5 minutes.
• April 22, 2014: 1 development variance permit, 3 committee resolutions, 4 staff reports, 4 bylaws and an in-camera session. 15 motions. Meeting duration: 4 minutes.
• October 20, 2014: 1 development variance permit, 3 staff reports, 3 correspondence items, 5 bylaws and an in-camera session. 16 motions. Meeting duration: 5 minutes.
• September 24, 2018: 2 committee resolutions, 2 bylaws. 6 motions. Meeting duration: 1 minute.
• September 26, 2018: 3 staff reports, 2 correspondence items, 3 bylaws. 9 motions. Meeting duration: 2 minutes. Meeting was held at 8:00am.

Every single motion in the meetings above was carried unanimously. No dissent, no amendments, no time for meaningful discussion or debate. 5 meetings in 17 minutes, 64 unanimous motions. And although Stew Young himself had a spotty attendance record, he was in attendance and chairing all of these meetings.

Is this what open and transparent governance looks like to you? Does it give you any insight into Council’s decision-making, or why the former Mayor and members of Council voted the way they did? It doesn’t do any of that for me. It looks like a box-ticking exercise done to formalize decisions that have already been pre-determined, outside of the public eye.

The Office of the Ombudsperson has an excellent guide on open meetings. One excerpt from that guide that speaks to my last point above is as follows:

>The open meetings rule is not met if there is a later public vote on a matter that has been inappropriately discussed and materially advanced in private. In such cases, the public is still “deprived of the opportunity to observe… decision-making work.”

I don’t believe Stew Young performed in a way that even approached the requirements for open meetings, or the concept of transparent governance. How would that even be possible when voting your way headlong through an agenda without a word of discussion?

Beginning in 2021, several factors contributed to Council meetings getting longer, with more public participation and more discussion at the Council table. These included:

1. Meetings started to be live streamed, with archived recordings made available online. This came after public scrutiny, accusations of secrecy, and an initial in-camera vote not to live stream meetings.
2. Councillors Lillian Szpak and Denise Blackwell “broke” from Stew Young’s majority on Council and began regularly speaking and voting against motions brought forward at the Council table.
3. Public scrutiny of Langford Council’s actions increased through the emergence of social media groups like Langford Voters for Change. Pushback increased, and the public became more engaged.

These all occurred in early 2021, which is the year the average length of Council meetings doubled.

The current Langford Council conducts its business at the Council table in a way that is nothing like the Stew Young years. Debates, discussions, and questions to staff or presenters take place openly and in full view of the public. Amendments and split votes are far more frequent. The meetings are longer because this Council follows not only the letter but the spirit of the rules on open meetings. This is open governance and increased transparency into Council decision-making.

I absolutely do not want to see Langford’s Mayor and Council go back to the old ways of doing business. I don’t think anyone should want that. Langford residents deserve better.

Source data:

Google drive with Langford Council meeting minutes

Excel file with Langford Council meeting attendance and duration

Excel file with Langford Council motions and voting record

This is a question I wanted an answer to. I’ve seen different amounts floating around in various media articles and social media posts, but it was always difficult to determine the real answer.

Former Mayor Stew Young’s campaign profile discussed the property in a July 14th Facebook post indicating a purchase price of about $2 million plus additional costs to stabilize the slope and rock faces of about $2.3 million. I’ve seen other estimates that are in the range of $5 million to $7 million. I’ve seen FOI requests that provided very granular transaction details of some of the capital expenditures, but which have not provided the kind of summary total info that I wanted.

Ultimately, I decided to submit my own FOI request. Here it is for anyone that’s interested. These are not my figures, this is directly from the City of Langford. The format is one that I provided to them as a template when I made the FOI request so that it was clear what I was looking for. I’ve also included the response letter so you can see the original request (the bulleted list).

As of June 30th, 2026 the City has spent just under $6.2M on this property. Aside from the site work itself and responding to the occasional trespasser, I’m only aware of two instances where the property has been utilized in any official capacity. The first was a special, in-camera Council meeting held at the property on May 13th, 2019. The second was another special, in-camera Council meeting held at the property on October 22nd, 2019. Go figure.

Langford residents have an important decision to make in October: Will incumbent Mayor Scott Goodmanson be re-elected to a second term, or will former Mayor Stew Young be given another chance to add to his previous 30 years in the Mayor’s chair?

Lately I’ve spent time reviewing Langford Council meeting minutes. I wanted to get a better sense for some of the real differences between Stew Young and Scott Goodmanson. There are many subjective differences, but I’m a numbers guy. I wanted to see what trends stood out to me that can be measured more objectively. Two specific things that I looked at… attendance at Council meetings, and the amount of time actually spent in Council meetings.

The contrast is stark. This post is a summary of the last 4 terms in office for Stew Young and the current term to date for Scott Goodmanson. Many of the numbers speak for themselves, but here are some of the takeaways that caught my attention:

1. Stew Young’s attendance at Council meetings was pretty bad. He showed up with greater frequency over the course of his last 4 terms, but still never got better than 78% attendance. In his 2008-2011 term he only attended Council meetings 55% of the time.

In contrast, Scott Goodmanson’s attendance at Council meetings has been excellent. He has been in attendance for 131 of the 137 Council meetings to date during this term.

2. Stew Young’s Council terms featured considerably shorter meetings than what we see today. At its speediest pace, the average meeting duration in the 2011-2014 term was only 26 minutes.

The current Council has an average meeting length of 2 hours and 19 minutes. They’ve also met far more frequently than the Councils of any of Stew Young’s last 4 terms.

The result? Scott Goodmanson has spent more time as Mayor actually in Council meetings this term than Stew Young did in his last 4 terms combined. By a wide margin.

I will be making a follow-up post that dives into this topic in greater detail comparing Council to Council.

I will be the first to point out that attendance and time spent in meetings is not indicative of performance. Merely showing up does not warrant praise. On the flip side, a history of failing to show up is something that I seriously question when considering who has earned my vote in October.

A few notes and caveats for those that have read this far:

- Includes Council meetings only (excludes committees).

- Does not differentiate between in-person and remote attendance.

- Does not factor in late arrivals, early departures, or recusals.

- One meeting during the 2014-2018 was excluded from duration statistics due to the minutes missing the time of meeting adjournment.

- Two special in-camera meetings during the 2014-2018 term were excluded due to published meeting minutes not being available.

Edit: I have been asked a couple of times for the data to support this analysis. Here is a link to the Google Drive that contains PDF copies of the meeting minutes for every meeting included in the analysis, as well as an Excel file that lists the meetings along with attendance and meeting duration information.

https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1Mx5pDd-R92QT5V8rzFwMX5rsUEplbvUJ?usp=sharing