How To Spin A News Release
January 12, 2013 Leave a comment
Law and Disorder
November 2, 2011 4 Comments
I have been in a minor state of disbelief these last few weeks. I have watched as the controversy over the filing of the petition against our elected officials has eclipsed the substance of the petition itself.
As a former Trustee, allow me to wade into this discussion. First, the notion that members of the public should simply turn a blind eye to what they perceive as wrong-doing by politicians is ludicrous. The applicable laws and policies are well established and relatively clear in this case.
To use the defense – “the means justify the ends” is so open ended, I’m sure H could have used it to justify the purification of the human race. But, that is obviously the most extreme of examples. A more applicable example is perhaps insider trading for the benefit of a not-for-profit society – say “Save the Children Society.” Would the fact that starving children would benefit from insider trading be all right? If a CEO was charged with such a crime, would you object and say let him go, he was only trying to be a nice guy? I’m just askin’
In my opinion, the primary problem here is political overreach into private societies, and, make no mistake about it, these are private societies with limited memberships. The Climate Action Council Society for example does not allow just any representative from a community organization, such as the Chamber of Commerce, to be a member. According to Trustee…I mean Chair Torgrimson, the proposed individual representative has to be first vetted, and then deemed “appropriate” by the Board of Directors, a process which could take several months. This clearly sets the stage for a private lobby group of like-minded souls to do what? Oh, yes….lobby the very local government organizations of which some of their Directors or Chairs are elected representatives.
If you do not see the conflict or bias problems inherent in this, allow me to quote the CAO of the Islands Trust, Linda Adams on the matter: “While there is nothing improper with a trustee being a member of a community group, the usual advice is not to remain in a leadership role of a group that has regular interaction with the local trust committee or that might make an application of some sort to the local trust committee. If, however, a trustee did have such a role, and the group was seeking a decision of some sort from the local trust committee, then the trustee would likely be advised not to participate in the decision.” A good example of this is when Peter Lamb stepped down as the President of the Salt Spring Conservancy prior to his running as a Trustee. That was the right thing to do (even though he evidently had to be told to do it.)
The questions which people should be asking themselves are these:
(a) did the Trustees declare their membership, in the three societies which they are Directors and/or Chairs of, to the Chair of the LTC and/or the public?
(b) if not, why not?
(c) how can a Chair and Director of a private society be unbiased about the very purposes of the society, especially if the society’s bylaws require members to uphold its bylaws?
(d) on an island full to the brim with dedicated volunteers, why would elected officials think it was necessary, or proper, to take leadership roles in private societies?
(e) how can a quorum of a local government (in this case 2 Trustees) meet behind closed doors, in their capacities as Chairs and Directors of private societies, decide to request funding from the LTC, then change into their public trustee hats, and propose and pass motions for the very same funding?
The petition is not about improving water quality, reducing carbon footprints or increasing affordable housing. It is about shining a light on accountability, transparency, established ethics, and the laws surrounding them. It is about politicians wearing three hats too many.
The petition is not malicious. It is the accumulated result of three years of questions surrounding the accountability, openness, transparency, cronyism, and due processes of the current administration.
The era of:
- banning of video taping of public meetings,
- attempted banning and then regulation of free speech at private society meetings,
- special LTC meetings held without the public having been properly notified,
- minutes of public meetings drastically altered behind closed doors to hide inconvenient truths,
- questions asked of public trustees at Town Hall sessions but never answered,
- secretive committees formed and convened outside of the public’s eyes and ears with no minutes taken, and now
- the formation of three private, select members-only, societies which raises the question, how can publicly elected trustees serve two masters without bias or conflict,
is hopefully over.
I challenge each and every critic of the petition to take the time to carefully think this through and then publicly propose their changes to the existing Provincial legislation, ethics and Islands Trust policies surrounding conflict of interest, bias, and meetings of a quorum behind closed doors.
I’m curious to see just how much disorder they are prepared to accept in the name of good intentions. Or, in their view this is just a “one-off” we should all ignore?
I await your proposed amendments with baited breath. Seeing none, this motion will pass……
The Phantom Chronicles (Part two)
October 22, 2011 2 Comments
I have now had a chance to review the video of the Oct. 6th LTC meeting and prepare a transcript
As you read the transcript keep in mind:
(a) Trustee Torgrimson is the Chair of the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council Society (SSI CACS),
(b) Trustee Ehring is a Director of the SSI CACS,
(c) We still have no idea if the Salt Spring Island Housing Council Society (SSI HCS) is even in existence, since it does not show up on the Provincial Registry of Societies
(d) The funding “requests” were not on the Agenda of this meeting, so Chair Malcolmson had evidently not seen any information prior to the meeting on these subjects. This mirrors the funding of the Salt Spring Island Water Council Society at the Sept 1, 2011 LTC meeting, (the subject of the civil action against the Trustees), was also not on the Agenda,
(e) There does not appear to be any formal funding request letters, from either the SSI CACS or the SSI HCS, introduced by either Trustee, just a two page backgrounder on proposed SSI CACS workshops,
(f) Trustee Ehring’s entire verbal contribution of “discussion” to these two motions is limited to, “Second it?…Seconded….Seconded…No.”
(video at http://www.imaginesaltspring.com/video/2011Oct_LTC/Oct2011_LTC.html )
[my notes and comments are in brackets]
Chair Malcolmson – Local Expense Reports, Section 16, anything? This is now page…
Trustee Torgrimson – [waving a piece of paper] I have something.
Chair Malcolmson – Oh, good, Trustee Torgrimson
Trustee Torgrimson – I have some background information, we don’t need to read it here. [Excuse me? “We don’t need to read it here”??] I want to make two motions, one that Salt Spring Local…and I have these in writing so you don’t have to jot them down …that we dedicate $4,000 from the Local Expense Budget to the Salt Spring Island Housing Council Society to support capacity building workshops and other training opportunities to local affordable housing advocates with a progress report delivered on or before March 15, 2012…and I have examples of the workshops here…uh… and that we also dedicate $4,000 from the Local Expense Budget to the Climate Action Council Society…same, uh, same, uh, deadline for a progress report on greenhouse gas reductions that respond to the Climate Action Plan and these would both be within, uh, the use of 75% of the, uh, total expense allowed for special projects budget and that we’re not going to be spending the Communications money that be transferred over into that account for a future Trust Committee, so I have these in writing and I have some background on those workshops, and, uh, the Climate Action…report,,,whuups…sorry…there you go…I’m just giving this to …and, uh, I have the motions in writing, so, if you’d like me to go ahead and move I can do that….the uh…[without waiting for direction from the Chair].I’d like to move that the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee dedicate $4,000 from the Local Expense Account to the Salt Spring Island Housing Council Society to support capacity building workshops and other training opportunities to local affordable housing advocates with a progress report delivered on or before March 15, 2012…um…[Torgrimson starts to go on before the motion is seconded]
Trustee Ehring – [interrupts Torgrimson, reminding her the motion has not been requested by the Chair if it is seconded, and asks if she wants it seconded] second it? [as in do you want me to second it?]
Trustee Torgrimson…yes…
Trustee Ehring – Seconded
Chair Malcolmson – [slightly embarrassed – to Trustee Ehring] Yes, thank you for chairing…
Trustee Torgrimson – …I thought we were running out of time so I’m moving ahead at a pace here… [it appears Torgrimson was going to make just one motion for the funding of both “societies”] so and so, um, the training workshops that we’re looking at [this indicates Torgrimson is involved in the Phantom SSI HCS], at this point, are in partnership with BC non-profit Housing Association and we [once again referencing herself and the SSI HCS] have one planned for November already, called Ready-Set-Build…
[Time out! – I have checked the BC Non-Profit Housing Association (BCNPHA) website which lists a Ready-Set-Build workshop is indeed to be held November 4, 2011 at Community Gospel Chapel – see- http://www.bcnpha.ca/pages/education/2011-workshops/bcnpha-regional-workshops/ready-set-build.php . From the BCNPHA site – “Workshop facilitation and instructor expenses are covered through the generous support of Canada Mortgage & Housing Corporation. (A nominal registration fee per person will be applied; 10 participants minimum required.) Registration Fee: $20 per person for BCNPHA members; $40 for non-members (includes HST). Advance registration is required.“
To the best of my knowledge this Workshop, now less than two weeks away, has not been advertised to the public, and, since Trustee Torgrimson announced “we have one planned for November already,” the date must have already been set as of the Oct. 6th meeting. Why no announcement of the Workshop date, or that if members of the public want to attend, they have to pre-register, or, that “Workshop facilitation and instructor expenses are covered…by CMHC”?
If Salt Spring Island participants’ registration costs are being funded by the Phantom, I would like to know, because, as a developer interested in Community Housing, I would like to attend the Workshop….Now, back to the show…]
Trustee Torgrimson…which helps housing advocates and providers prepare well for getting a housing project off the ground and implemented. There are a number of other kinds of examples of workshops in the handout I’ve given you and out of the three areas of recommendation from the Community Affordable Housing Strategy we’ve supported is mentioned in the OCP, as something the LTC move forward, is, uh, a section on support to increase capacity building within the non-profit sector on the island so more housing can actually be brought…housing projects can be brought forward and developed so that’s the direction of this…
Chair Malcolmson – Any further discussion?
Trustee Ehring – No.
Chair Malcolmson – Are you ready to vote? All those in favour? It passes unanimously.
Trustee Torgrimson – Ok, and on the second motion that the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee dedicate $4,000 from the LTC Local Expense Account (65230) to the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council Society and deliver, on or before March 15, 2012 a progress report on local GHG reduction activities related to the SSI Climate Action Plan.
Trustee Ehring – Seconded
Chair Malcolmson – And the rationale?
Trustee Torgrimson – And the rationale for this motion is that we have long been supporting Climate Action activities on the island with the inclusion of the full section in the OCP related to the Islands Trust commitment to um, uh, [to Ehring] what is it called?…the entire
Chair Malcolmson – Bill 27?
Trustee Torgrimson – The uh…
Chair Malcolmson – The Climate Action Charter?
Trustee Torgrimson – Yeah, I think you’re right…and also Bill 27 and the Charter for greenhouse gas reduction as a result of that we supported the creation of the Climate Action Plan of the island and involved individuals and community groups to achieve those reduction efforts and this is a progress report on that, that will also be an encouragement for further GHG reduction activities on the island.
Chair Malcolmson – Thank you. Any further discussion? I know you commented…although it might have just run over quickly, that there’s still, by virtue of this protecting 25% of the budget for the next Trust Committee to spend…
Trustee Torgrimson – …yes we will, there’s still plenty of the expense account
Chair Malcolmson – Although I’d like…just before we move on from this..Community Affairs…or whatever its called now…Minister Chong’s address to the UBCM she specifically noted Islands Trust work on Climate Change in relation to the Climate Action Charter out of all local governments we’re the only one that got named so I imagine that’s Salt Spring’s work that is maybe getting her attention so compliments to your community. So, you ready to vote? All those in favour? It passes unanimously.
Editorial Comment
So, what’s wrong with all this? Here are a few questions which are raised, and which I believe/hope will be sorted out soon:
- Is it reasonable to assume, considering these motions were not on the Agenda, and Trustee Ehring had nothing to say whatsoever regarding the unannounced items, that Trustee Torgrimson had likely discussed the motions, or the background of the funding requests (coming from ) with Trustee Ehring (a Director of the SSI CACS) before the LTC meeting?
- Did either Trustee publicly disclose their interest or positions in either society to the Chair?
- Given there does not appear to have been any formal funding request letter from either “society,” is it reasonable to conclude that Torgrimson was actually pitching the funding requests, on the behalf of the SSI CACS and the Phantom, in her capacity as Chair of the SSI CACS and possibly the Chair of the Phantom?
- Since
- both Trustees have previously been involved in the morphing of the Water Council and the Climate Action Council into private societies,
- both Trustees are members of the Salt Spring Island Community Affordable Housing Strategy (SSI CAHS),
- Torgrimson is Chair of the SSI CAHS,
is it reasonable to conclude the Trustees are planning to morph the SSI CAHS into another private, not-for-profit society tentatively called the SSI HCS?
- Is it fraudulent for public trustees to knowingly dedicate public monies to an as-yet-to-be-registered Phantom society?
- Is it illegal for a quorum of the LTC to meet behind closed doors, in their capacities as Directors and/or Chairs of private societies, to discuss how to obtain funding for those societies from the LTC?
- Is it improper for a Trustee(s) to take part in the discussion and decisions, at a Local Trust Committee Meeting, of funding societies, with taxpayer dollars, of which they are Directors?
- Is it proper for a sitting Trustee(s) to be a Director and/or Chair of a private society whose effective purposes are to lobby the LTC for changes to local regulations, bylaw, etc.. which the private society members, in their sole opinion, deem to be “appropriate”?
Once again, I would like to emphasize this is not about water quality, control of climate change (as if that were possible), or managing our housing crisis. This is entirely about whether public trustees are acting legally, ethically and morally in the public’s best interest.
As a former Trustee, it is clear to me boundaries have been crossed. And, it is my opinion that if I, as a Trustee, had tried something as foolhardy as directing public funds to a private society of which I was the Chair, without any disclosure of the conflict (direct, indirect or perceived), I would have been lambasted by the very Trustees (and their biggest supporters) who currently stand accused.
My highest recommendation is that the Trustees immediately file their formal response to the civil claim, and request an immediate court date to resolve these matters. If they truly believe they are completely innocent of all wrongdoing charges, and this is an open and shut case, then let’s have the air cleared asap….say the first week in November.
In the meantime I will continue to pursue the Phantom….
Phunding a Phony Phantom?
October 20, 2011 3 Comments
Another Private Society?
We are all familiar with the Lady Minto’s annual Phantom Ball fund raiser. However, it appears they now have local competition.
The latest set of questions which have arisen for the embattled Salt Spring Island Trustees, George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson, revolve around their funding of what appears to a non-existent society.
At the October 6, 2011 Local Trust Committee (LTC) Meeting, Trustees George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson moved and seconded and passed a resolution to provide the Salt Spring Island Housing Council Society with $4,000.
As was the case with the funding for the Water Council Society on Sept. 1, 2011, the Salt Spring Island Housing Council Society funding “request” was not on the LTC Agenda, and, came forward, side-by-side, with the $4,000 funding for the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council Society.
However, a search of the Provincial Society Registry indicates no such entity as the Salt Spring Housing Council Society (or Salt Spring Island Housing Council Society) currently exists.
Given the Trustees have admitted they co-founded two other private societies (the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council Society and the Salt Spring Island Water Council Society) is it possible they jumped the funding gun and dedicated money to an as yet to be created private society?
The questions which flow from this are:
1. What is the Phantom Salt Spring Housing Council Society?
2. Who are the founding and current Directors?
3. When was it founded?
4. Where is the written funding request from the Phantom Society to the Local Trust Committee and, who signed the funding request?
5. If the Society is not yet established, were the Trustees aware of that fact when they passed the resolution?
6. Did the two Trustees meet, outside of the public eye, to discuss this funding request prior to the LTC meeting, since it was not on the October 6, 2011, Agenda? (see – http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/ltc/ss/pdf/ssagendaoct062011cov.pdf )
7. Has a cheque for the $4,000 been issued by the Islands Trust and/or cashed by the Phantom Salt Spring Housing Council Society, and if so, into what bank account and under whose signing authority?
8. What are the Bylaws of the Phantom Society, and are the minutes of the Society’s meetings freely available to the public?
9. What are the Membership requirements of the Phantom Society?
10. Has the Phantom Society hired a phantom paid Coordinator, and, if so, when?
To provide balanced reporting, I will interweave answers from the LTC with the above questions when they are received. To that end, I have forwarded a list of questions to the LTC’s Chair, Trustee Sheila Malcolmson, which should help to begin unmasking this Phantom.
Update October 22nd – I have now reviewed the video of the Oct 6 LTC meeting and will be posting a new blog with the verbatim transcript and link to the video later today.
Bias, Buy Us, or Alright By Us?
October 19, 2011 Leave a comment
Trustees George Ehring and Christine Torgrimson, in response to the civil action filed against them, today stated in the Driftwood (http://www.bclocalnews.com/vancouver_island_south/saltspringislanddriftwood/news/132108983.html :
[Note – comments in brackets throughout this post are mine]
“At no time did we believe that we were doing anything wrong….[there is] a contract[s] for [all] work authorized by the Trust’s treasurer and supervised by Trust staff….we agreed to become directors of the new societies [Climate Action Council Society and Water Council Society]….They [their private Societies] do valuable work, and in our [your elected Trustees] opinion deserve public [your tax dollar’s] support…..The model is used in other communities, where elected officials have a seat at the table of some of the community groups they fund [I want examples]…If any of the petitioners had contacted us with their concerns, we certainly would have looked carefully into the issue and sought advice….We have no wish to incur the expense associated with legal action….We think there is a better way to address this.”
Alright, so, what is the problem? In my personal experience as a Trustee, it is now crystal clear to me that the Trustees:
(a) have ignored their legislative duties as Trustees,
(b) have ignored Islands Trust policy,
(c) have ignored the Community Charter provisions of conflict,
(d) have ignored the provincial Ministry Ethical Guidelines regarding conflict of interest,
(e) have improperly participated in the affairs of the two Societies they helped to create,
(f) have misunderstood the total inappropriateness of relying upon the “models” referred to in their relationship to the legislative requirements and restrictions of a quorum of the Local Trust Committee,
(g) do not recognize that their use of the term “they” in reference to the very Societies of which they, themselves, (in their capacities as Island Trustees), are Directors and Chairs, is absurd. It is akin to pointing at their reflection in the mirror and referring to the mirror image as a separate entity. Are they, or are they not, sitting on the Societies as Trustees? The Societies’ bylaws specifically state – “Members shall be (c) duly elected Salt Spring Island local trustees of the Islands Trust or their authorized representatives.” I am not aware of any legal ability of a Trustee to “authorize” someone to act on their behalf. Considering the Trustees helped write the bylaws, it is clear they did not seek any advice from the Islands Trust’s legal counsel. If they did not, why not? It’s a pretty simple and prudent thing for a public Trustee to do.
(h) did not seek independent legal advice prior to their participation in the founding of the Societies, including the creation of the Society’s bylaws.
(i) have neglected to admit to the public the Societies’ customized bylaws (62(4)) allow Directors to “act in a professional capacity for the society…and they or their firm shall be entitled to remuneration for professional services as if they were not a director.”
(j) have neglected to admit to the public that one of the Societies’ bylaws Purposes states, “To advocate for appropriate government legislation, regulations and policies…” How do you square that “Purpose” with the fact that a quorum of the Local Trust Committee is sitting as Directors/Chairs of both Societies?
Am I to believe that as Directors, the Trustees are advocates of the private Societies, advocating to themselves, as a quorum of the Local Trust Committee, behind closed doors, the opinions created within the private Societies, and they don’t see the problem with that?
So, let’s get down to it and look at the applicable legislation.
Community Charter/Ethical Guidelines/Trust Policy
It is extremely difficult for anyone to wade through the gobbledygook of government legislation to try and understand what the law says on any particular subject, let alone one as confusing as conflict of interest, bias, non-disclosure of elected government officials.
To better understand the application of the Community Charter, Islands Trust Policy and the Ministry’s Ethical Conduct guidelines, to the current allegations against Trustees I have taken a few minutes to:
1. edit down the relevant portions of the Community Charter (in italics), and,
2. add the Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development Ethical Conduct recommendations (in bold italics), and,
3. add Islands Trust Policy Guidelines on quorums of the LTC (underlined), and,
4. substitute the “words” Trustees, LTC meeting, Advisory Planning Commission, etc. (non-italicized, non-bolded) for “council members,” “council meetings,” “council commitees,” etc., and,
5. highlight, in red, sections which appear to me to be the basis of the allegations of conflict of interest and non-disclosure.
6. add my notes [in brackets]
The resultant combined text then will hopefully provide you with a clear understanding of the applicable Provincial and Islands Trust legislation:
Islands Trust Policy Guidelines
Any gathering of a quorum [two Trustees] of local trust committee members at which the business of the local trust committee is advanced in a material way constitutes a meeting for the purposes of the “open meeting” rule in the Community Charter.
The purpose of the open meeting rule is to ensure that the local trust committee’s business is conducted in an open forum, except where the nature of the business comes within one of the statutory exceptions to the rule and the business may lawfully be conducted in the absence of the public.
The fact that a particular discussion may be occurring via telephone or e-mail does not prevent it from constituting a “meeting” for the purposes of the open meeting rule.
The fact that two persons may constitute a quorum of the local trust committee presents particular difficulties in the application of the open meeting rule. Local trustees need not avoid one another in social situations or impose other artificial constraints on their interaction as members of an island community.
Discussions of administrative and logistical matters connected to the local trust committee’s business agenda are unlikely to violate the open meeting rule. Trustees should ask themselves, in determining whether a particular discussion or other interaction should be avoided outside the forum of a trust committee meeting, whether the fact that the discussion or interaction has already occurred would enable the committee to get through a forthcoming meeting agenda more quickly as a result of the trustees having already exchanged views on the matter.
If the answer is yes, then the discussion or interaction should not occur outside the context of an actual meeting.
Community Charter provisions:
Conflict of Interest – Disclosure of conflict
The following applies to Trustees in relation to LTC meetings and meetings of any other body, like the Advisory Planning Commission.
If a Trustee attending an LTC meeting considers that he or she is not entitled to participate in the discussion of a matter, or to vote on a question in respect of a matter, because the Trustee has a direct or indirect pecuniary interest in the matter, or another interest in the matter that constitutes a conflict of interest, the Trustee must declare this and state in general terms the reason why the Trusee considers this to be the case.
Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development Ethical Conduct provisions:
A Trustee must…declare a conflict if he or she has some other, non-pecuniary type of interest that places the person in a conflict position (e.g., bias). This could include any benefit obtained by relations, close friends, or associates of a member who is in conflict. Examples may include a rezoning application by a relative or close personal friend or a business license decision involving a competitor business to one operated by a close friend. The facts of each situation will be unique and will need to be considered when determining if a member is in a non-pecuniary conflict of interest situation.
In broad terms, a Trustee has a non-pecuniary conflict of interest if:
(a) the Trustee’s interest in the matter is immediate and distinct from the public interest;
(b) it can be reasonably determined that the Trustee’s private interest in the matter will influence his or her vote on the matter;
(c) the Trustee, or one of his or her relations or associates, stands to realize a personal benefit from a favourable decision on the matter; and
(d) the potential benefit to the Trustee is not financial in nature.
The key consideration for Trustees is whether a reasonable person would conclude that the decision-making could be influenced or affected by the connection, such that a private interest could conflict with a Trustee’s public duties. When in doubt it is advised that Trustees err on the side of caution and declare any real or perceived non-pecuniary conflict of interest.
Community Charter provisions continued:
After making a declaration, the Trustee must not remain or attend at any part of an LTC meeting during which the matter is under consideration, participate in any discussion of the matter at the LTC meeting, vote on a question in respect of the matter at the LTC meeting, or attempt in any way, whether before, during or after the meeting, to influence the voting on any question in respect of the matter.
When such a declaration is made, the person recording the minutes of the meeting must record the Trustee’s declaration or statement, the reasons given for it, and the time of the Trustee’s departure from the LTC meeting room and, if applicable, of the Trustee’s return, and the Chair of the LTC must ensure that the member is not present at any part of the LTC meeting during which the matter is under consideration.
A person who contravenes these requirements is disqualified from holding an office as a Trustee until the next election, unless the contravention was done inadvertently or because of an error in judgment made in good faith.
If it appears that a person is disqualified and is continuing to act in office, 10 or more electors of the LTC Area may apply to the Supreme Court for an order. An application to disqualify a Trustee may only be made within 45 days after the alleged basis of the disqualification comes to the attention of any of the electors bringing the application.
[Note – I have heard a few people ask “Why are these charges being filed now?” It is clear the fuse was lit on the charges on September 1, 2011, and the time limit for filing the Petition would have expired on October 16, 2011]
Within 7 days after the petition commencing an application is filed, it must be served on the Trustee whose right to hold office is being challenged. On the hearing of the application, the court may declare that the Trustee is qualified to hold office, that the Trustee is disqualified from holding office, or that the Trustee is disqualified from holding office and that the office is vacant.
A Trustee who is subject to an application and who considers that he or she is qualified to hold office may continue to act in office pending the determination of the Supreme Court respecting the application.
If a Trustee who is declared disqualified from holding office by the Supreme Court appeals the decision, the appeal does not operate as a stay of the declaration and the Trustee is disqualified pending the final determination of the appeal.
If a declaration of disqualification is overturned on final appeal and the term of office for which the Trustee was elected has not ended, the Trustee is entitled to take office for the remainder of the term if otherwise qualified, and, for this purpose, any other person elected or appointed to the office since the declaration of disqualification ceases to hold office at the time the person declared qualified takes office.
In the case of an application made by a group of electors, if the court declares that the Trustee challenged is not qualified to hold office, the Islands Trust must promptly pay the electors’ costs within the meaning of the Supreme Court Civil Rules.
The court may order that costs to be paid may be recovered by the Islands Trust from the Trustee who was declared disqualified or any other person as directed by the court in the same manner as a judgment of the Supreme Court.
Except as provided the costs of an application are in the discretion of the court.
Sources –
Community Charter – Conflict of Interest – Disclosure of Interest
Community Charter – Disqualification
Ministry of Community, Sport & Cultural Development – Ethical Conduct – http://www.cscd.gov.bc.ca/lgd/gov_structure/community_charter/governance/ethical_conduct.htm
Islands Trust Policy – Local Trust Committee Meeting Guidelines:
http://www.islandstrust.bc.ca/tc/pdf/tcpol4-1-iidec052003.pdf
Why the Fuss is All About
October 17, 2011 1 Comment
As I have said before, and will continue to say, the current allegations against the Trustees and CRD Director are not about “water quality” or “climate change.” The fuss is about transparency, accountability, honesty, political ethics, and possible Islands Trust policy and Community Charter violations.
I have already heard it suggested by some that the civil action is politically motivated.
As an example, Charles Buchwald, in the Driftwood online comment section, states, “As far as I can tell, none of this was secret, and islanders had an opportunity to comment on the process at many times. This looks to me like a politically motivated witch hunt. Calling for resignations just ignores the good work these people have done… especially so when it ignores the entire principle of presumed innocence. How ironic that you invoke the spectre of a “centralized municipal option” that would surely ensconce a pork barrel plutocracy.”
I will allow readers to make up their own minds [after viewing the video and reading along with the transcript below] as to whether (a) there was anything ‘secret’ going on, (b) ‘islanders had an opportunity to comment on the process,’ (c) ‘good work’ cancels potential illegal actions by politicians, (d) “the entire principle of presumed innocence’ precludes allegations of wrong doing against politicians, (e) there is no evidence of what could be considered by some as ‘pork barrel plutocracy’ considering Trustee Ehring’s successfully elected running mate in 2005 was Peter Lamb, who now happens to be the paid Coordinator of the Water Council Society.
With all of that in mind, the following is a verbatim transript of the September 1, 2011 Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee Meeting regarding Water Council [Society] funding. [Editor’s note – there are a few passages which were unintelligible, and I have noted them. If any of the participants wish to correct or clarify any of the passages I would be happy to do so.]
I recommend reading the following as you watch the video ( http://www.imaginesaltspring.com/video/septLTC/septLTC_water_funding.html ) of the Meeting. While doing so, please consider:
(a) Trustee Torgrimson is also a Director of the Water Council Society
(b) Trustee Ehring is also an Officer (Chairperson) of the Water Council Society
(c) The funding request was not on the LTC Agenda
(d) [My notes/comments are in brackets]
Trustee Torgrimson – Yes, I have a motion to propose related to dedicating some funding from the Local Trustee Expense budget and so…it’s to support a workshop and a report on groundwater on Salt Spring Island. And so this would be a workshop by the Salt Spring Island Water Council [Society] and some…. Our previous support for them [the first of many 3rd person referrals – them, they…] on the analysis of potable water showed 75-80% of estimated total water supply on the island actually is groundwater and that we [the LTC?] need to know more about it and to coordinate our [the LTC?] efforts between the various local and provincial and regional entities related to groundwater. And so, the Water Council [Society] is proposing a one day workshop involving Water Council [Society] members [including Torgrimson and Chair Ehring], groundwater community water systems representatives, folks from the local service commissions, VIHA, Trust planners, CRD staff, well drillers, hydrology consultants, water testing laboratories, and University of Victoria, and individual well owners. And so, I want to propose that…and I have this in writing…“That the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee dedicate $4,000 from its Local Expense Account” ….[to the Chair:] you don’t have to scribble this….”to the Salt Spring Island Water Council [Society] for work related to groundwater resources upon receipt of the following deliverables on or before March 15, 2012, planning, organizing and holding a workshop and providing a final report summarizing presented information, breakout discussions and recommended actions.” And I have, if you’re interested in reading more in detail, about the project, I have a two-pager from the Water Council [Society] if you were “caught with that” because I haven’t previously distributed it.”[Torgrimson passes the “two-pager” to Trustee Ehring who glances at it and passes it to Chair Malcolmson who evidently had never seen it before the meeting. Chair Malcolmson passes on a copy to Regional Planning Manager Leah Hartley, and glances through the document while saying:]
Chair Malcolmson: [uncomfortably:] Shall we…. show this as a…you know….handout…or something….so that it’s available, because it hasn’t been previously distributed…
Trustee Torgrimson…I think they [the Water Council Society members] will mirror the workshop, will prepare materials and its going to be (unintelligible)…
Chair Malcolmson: …[clarifying] I’m just thinking more, it’s just nice for us to be passing a resolution to release funds that there’s some documentation [as would be reasonable with any funding request to the LTC] in the agenda on what it is…so that [the two pager] could be something that…um, that we receive…
Trustee Torgrimson…it hasn’t been our practice before and so I just brought it for information for the Trustees so that….
Chair Malcolmson: …OK great (unintelligible)…
Trustee Torgrimson: …they [the Society members?] didn’t request that it be part of the official record, so I’m a little unsure about that, because its their [the Society members?] workshop and I [as a Trustee or a Director of the Society?] know that they [the Society members] will be advertising it though and getting a (unintelligible) but it may be some way off…um
[Note – With Trustee Torgrimson being “a little unsure” about what the Society’s “request,” you would think that would be an opportune time for the Chair of the Water Council Society, sitting immediately to her right, to offer some clarification.]
Chair Malcolmson: Right
Trustee Torgrimson: They [the Society members] are hoping to hold it before the end of the year, but its not positive, and they [the Society members] are of course wanting to collaborate with Islands Trust staff in their various work related to groundwater as well.
Chair Malcolmson: Would you like to put the motion on the floor?
Trustee Torgrimson: Yes. I would move the motion I just read…do you want me to read it again?
Chair Malcolmson: Yes, please.
Trustee Torgrimson: “That the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee dedicate $4,000 from its Local Expense Account to the Salt Spring Island Water Council [Society] for work related to groundwater resources upon receipt of the following deliverables on or before March 15, 2012, planning, organizing and holding a workshop and providing a final report summarizing presented information, breakout discussion and recommended actions.”
Chair Malcolmson: Is there a seconder?
Trustee Ehring: I’ll second it.
Chair Malcolmson: Is there any further discussion?
Trustee Torgrimson: Yes, I would say a couple of things….that in the OCP you have considerable objectives and policies that support this endeavour. Section C.3 is potable water quality as… and there are two general objectives and one policy that support the intention of this workshop and that Section C.3 – Private surface collection and groundwater supplies has one of two objectives…is to preserve known groundwater recharge areas and then there are one, two, three, four, five different policies that support the intention of a workshop.
Chair Malcolmson: I’m sorry, which of the Local Expense sections would this come from?
Trustee Torgrimson: …Special Projects…
Chair Malcolmson: Yes, can I just take it by consent the motion refers to that account, that helps me…
Trustee Torgrimson: Yes, I thought about that but we hadn’t done it before so I didn’t include it and that’s fine…
Chair Malcolmson: And so the number that would be inserted is 65230?
Trustee Torgrimson: Mmhmm, yes…
Chair Malcolmson: …in brackets after the “Local Expense”…
Trustee Torgrimson: …Yes
[Note – This following passage lasts just 3 seconds]
Chair Malcolmson: Is there any further discussion? [seeing no indication from either Trustee]…all those in favour? [all three Trustees raise their hands]…it passes unanimously. Thank you.
My questions:
(1) Why did neither Torgrimson or Ehring disclose, or even acknowledge, their membership, positions or association in the Society to the Chair of the LTC?
(2) Why was there no mention the funding request was for the “Society.” Did the Chair assume it was for the Society, or did the Chair not know the Water Council had actually been morphed into a society two months earlier, in July 2011? Having personally known Trustee Malcolmson for nine years, my guess would be she had absolutely no idea.
(3) Why did Trustee Torgrimson and not Trustee Ehring [Chair of the Water Council Society] bring the motion to the LTC? Wouldn’t it stand to reason that he, as Chair, should know the most about the goings on of the Society?
(4) Why did Trustee Ehring have absolutely nothing to say about the motion, or, offer one iota of explanation of the funding request?
(5) Why did Trustee Torgrimson consistently refer to the Water Council [Society] in the third person – they and them – when herself and another Director of the Society were sitting directly beside each other?
(6) If Chair Malcolmson was aware of the Trustees involvement in the Society, why didn’t she say something, and, if she wasn’t aware, what would/should she have done given the circumstances? What will she say under oath?
(7) Why did Islands Trust staff not bring to the Chair’s attention Torgrimson and Ehring’s involvement in the Society? Are we to believe they didn’t know, or, that Torgrimson and Ehring didn’t ever bring it to staff’s attention? What will staff say under oath?
I have yet to review the October 6, 2011 LTC meeting video, but, am looking forward to it. And, it will be interesting to see the Trustees’ formal responses to the civil claim which are evidently due October 31st (Trustee Ehring) and November 3rd (Torgrimson).
I will keep you posted as the news happens. If you wish to follow/subscribe to this story, please use the button available at the top of the page.
Conflict Discussion
October 14, 2011 1 Comment
The following is an edited (commercial free) copy of the October 14th Troublemakers, CFSI-FM, Radio Show, (courtesy CFSI-FM) featuring Eric Booth, Drew Clarke, and Paul Marcano. The featured topic – Conflict of interest charges against Trustees George Ehring and Christine Togrimson and CRD Director Garth Hendren. (71 minutes)
Conflicting Interests
October 14, 2011 1 Comment
(Editors Note – Please subscribe to follow this story as it unfolds. I will be updating it periodically. If any reader has any factual corrections or additions to the information, please send them to ericbooth@shaw.ca . As always, I stand to be corrected on any fact.)
Once upon a time, way back in 2005, just weeks before the Islands Trust election, I wrote, and circulated Island wide, an 8 page article (2005 Election ) outlining how I believed a small group of people on the island, if elected, would use political power to further their self interests. Here is a snippet from the article:
“Trust is a funny thing. You can work your entire life building it, and yet, one slip, and you can lose it all. I’ve even heard a rather coarse joke about it. An apology for an error in judgment can sometimes restore trust, but, if the event which caused the loss of trust is not an isolated case, and is shown to be planned – for example the Liberal adscam scenario – it is unlikely even those who were held in high regard before the scandal, will keep their cherished standing in the community. The higher up you are, the further it is to fall. Backroom politics, elitism and deal making are abhorrent to most voters.”
I wrote how group, after group, after group had been formed by the same small group of people, and I named names, including those of George Ehring, Christine Torgrimson, Gary Holman, Peter Lamb, Marion Pape, David Borrowman, Jean Gelwicks and Maxine Leichter. I questioned why what to me was clearly a political springboard meeting for Lamb and Ehring to become Trustees, had been sponsored by the Salt Spring Conservancy (of which Mr. Lamb was the President at the time), with funding for it clearly, and inappropriately, running through the Conservancy. (I must have struck a nerve, because Lamb actually tried to have Canada Post stop the distribution of the article.) I also revealed how this small group of people were the main objectors to the incorporation of Salt Spring.
I spoke out against “the small, self-interest groups on this island whom I believe, while all, very well-intentioned, continue to misinform Salt Spring on issues ranging from water to development to environmental impact to local governance to taxation. The fear mongering and misinformation tactics I have witnessed over the past few years have a tendency not to provide the truth or balanced, creative solutions to the challenges and opportunities we face, but rather tend to unnecessarily split this community apart on issues, time and time again.”
And here we are, six years later, almost to the day, and the cows are evidently coming home to roost. A civil action has been launched by 15 Salt Spring Island electors, against Trustees Christine Torgrimson and George Ehring, and CRD Director Garth Hendren (Petition ) The filed petition to the Court alleges conflict of interest by the three in the funding of, and the inappropriate participation in, two recently formed private societies – the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council Society and the Salt Spring Island Water Council Society.
So, what’s the big deal here? The answer is rather simple. Cronyism, conflict of interest, inappropriate participation, improper process, and lack of accountability and transparency are not the qualities for which we elect politicians to protect our tax dollars and due processes of governance. Period. This is not about climate change, potable water or good intentions and/or roads paved with them.
Take a moment to view the video of the September 1, 2011 LTC Meeting (link below). Keep in mind while you’re watching it that Torgrimson and Ehring, in their private capacities are Directors of the Water Council Society. Listen carefully and see (a) whether they give any indication or declaration of their involvement in the Society, (b) whether the word “society” is even used, (c) how Torgrimson refers to the Water Council in the third person as “they,” (d) how Torgimson deflects the Chair’s request for the funding request effectively to be in writing from the Water Council, (e) how Trustee Ehring seconds Torgrimson’s motion, and does not utter one word of discussion, (f) consider that since this item was not on the agenda, it should have been coming as a surprise to Ehring, but, likely, since they are both Directors of the Water Council, they had already discussed this outside of the public realm, thereby breaking the public meeting rule of a meeting of a quorum of the LTC held behind closed doors to discuss and move an item forward relevant to the LTC.
http://www.imaginesaltspring.com/video/septLTC/septLTC_water_funding.html
The history of this scandal, like all good scandals, is convoluted, and as I mentioned, had its “roots” nourished 6 years ago. Over the past 3 years questions of transparency and accountability have been steadily rising. I have witnessed Trustees Torgrimson and Ehring balk at, and ban, the video taping of public meetings. This change in accepted practice began in February of 2009, when I was denied the right to video the Local Trust Committee meeting. This was the 2nd LTC meeting at which Torgrimson was a trustee. The question as to why any elected official would be concerned about having a video record being made of their decisions, actions, deliberations, comments, etc. was beyond me. Having been a politician myself, I believe politicians are elected to represent the public’s interest, not their own private self interests or whims. During my term of office I had never taken any exception to anyone videotaping our meetings. Any whiff of a conflict of interest should send you running out of the room, as it did me on three occasions.
Luckily, members of the public and press eventually forced the LTC to allow limited video taping of meetings. Lucky for the public that is, and unlucky for the Trustees, given that video tape from two recent LTC meetings will now likely be used as evidence against them in a court of law.
I have been trying to understand the how, why, and who of the SSI Climate Action Council Society and the Salt Spring Island Water Council Society. Here is what I have been able, to date, ascertain:
(a) on December 14, 2009 Ehring and Torgrimson formed an ad hoc Local Trust committee, which they named the Climate Action Coordination Committee (CACC). To the best of my knowledge none of the CACC meetings were ever held in public, and no minutes of the meetings were reported through the LTC. The initial members of the CACC (Peter Lamb, Gary Holman, Elizabeth White and Marion Pape) were evidently hand picked by the Trustees with no public input or notification. CRD Director Hendren attended the formative meeting, but, in my opinion, Hendren, Torgrimson and Ehring were technically ex-officio members of the Committee. Islands Trust staff also attended. By early January Leslie Wallace (now running for CRD Director) was chosen as the paid CACC Workshop Coordinator, and Margery Moore (I-SEA) was added as a member of the CACC.
(b) February 6, 2010
A community “Climate Action Workshop” was held at Salt Spring’s Gulf Islands Secondary School. The announcement encouraged the public to attend. There had been no mention that this “workshop” would subsequently be deemed to have met the “community consultation” requirements prior to considering an amendment to the OCP. It was attended by Ehring, Torgrimson, Malcolmson and Lamb. The ‘welcoming address’ was given by Trustee George Ehring, which included the following:
“This is not a meeting of the climate deniers… is this happening, or that it’s not caused by human intervention or that it’s the stars or the moon or something else..…that’s not it…that’s not what this meeting…if you came to debate the science with us you’re in the wrong room. I’ve been asked to say that as politely as I could but [obscured by laughter] if we’re here to save energy, that’s one of the ways we’re not going to waste energy.”
Thus, Ehring, Torgrimson, et al, made it clear that anyone who disagreed with their belief in manmade global warming were thereby summarily dismissed, along with ANY scientific argument to the contrary. In doing so, they evidently disagreed with about 15 million Canadians. According to the latest Angus Reid poll half of Canadians (48%) say that that global warming is not a fact and is not mostly caused by emissions from vehicles and industrial facilities.
(c) the CACC was “morphed” into the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council (CAC) sometime in June 2010. The announcement of the formation of the “Council” was made at the June 2010 LTC meeting by Trustee Ehring, and, the public record shows there was never again a mention of the CACC, leading one to believe it ceased to exist at some point, although evidently not officially disbanded through LTC resolution.
Trustee George Ehring: One of the things that’s going to flow from that [OCP changes for climate change], working with the two of us, together with Regional Director Garth Hendren, we’ve made terms of reference for what we’re calling the Climate Action Council.
The first meeting of that Climate Action Council will take place later on this month and its principle objective will be to try to articulate those specific things that individuals and community organizations can do on the island to begin to reduce in a serious way our greenhouse gas emissions. This may be the most important kind of fight, that we as a community may take on, collectively, that we’ve ever faced….so we’re going to form a Climate Council…more news will come out about this later on in the month..I’m not going to get involved in the details about it, the group hasn’t even met yet, but I do want to say we’re in the process of forming that and it will be to work with you, in the community, to develop strategies and plans for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions.
It is clear, according to Ehring (a) terms of reference had been made for the Climate Action Council by himself and Trustee Torgrimson, (b) the first meeting of the Council had not yet been held, (c) Ehring, Torgrimson and Hendren were considered the founders of the Council.
In retrospect it is clear that (a) the Council was going to be an independent body and therefore not accountable to the Local Trust Committee itself, (b) Council members were to be hand selected by Torgrimson and Ehring, (c) the Council was replacing the function of the Climate Action Coordination Committee.
The CAC, as founded by Ehring and Torgrimson, was described by Islands Trust staff, an “ad hoc coordinating arm of community organizations.” In fact, when a member of the public asked Trustee Torgrimson about the meetings of the SSI Climate Action Council, she was told by Torgrimson that the CAC was “an independent community entity” and that the “inquiry” posed a “protocol and policy matter that the Council will need to discuss.” This response was in spite of the fact that Council was being publicly funded by Trustees Torgrimson and Ehring, and chaired by Torgrimson reportedly in her capacity as an elected Trustee. Subsequently, in her capacity as Chair of the CAC Torgrimson reported, “Council meetings are generally open to the public for attendance and observation. Upon occasion, the Council may invite public participation in their meetings, which shall be managed by the chair….As far as releasing the other members’ names, I’ve not received their permission to publicize their names, so I am not comfortable with passing on that information at this time….”
I find this exchange to be quite remarkable. A publicly elected official, evidently sitting, in her capacity as a Trustee, as Chair of an “independent community entity,” funded by taxpayer dollars, the membership of which she was not “comfortable” to divulge to a member of the public, and meetings which were not completely open to the public…can anyone else see what is starting to be wrong with this picture?
(d) The CACC was subsequently morphed into the Salt Spring Island Climate Action Society (CACS) (a registered, private, not-for-profit society) on April 20, 2011, but, curiously no mention of this was ever made by either Trustee at the time.
The listed founding Directors of the CACS were Christine Torgrimson, Peter Lamb, George Ehring, Clare Cullen and Daniel Ruane (who is listed as the primary contact for “Transition Salt Spring” of which Marion Pape, Eizabeth White, Margery Moore, Gary Holman, Leslie Wallace, Andrew Haigh, Clare Cullen, Nomi Lyonns, and Peter Lamb are all listed members).
(e) According to the bylaws of the CACS, it has a limited membership of 17 people, all of whom are considered Directors of the Society. And, while the CACS website lists the organizations who are supposedly members, it does not list the actual individuals who are Directors, it being noted an organization, or elected position of a local government, cannot be a “Director” of a not-for-profit society – it has to be a person, an individual. Thus, most of the actual membership of this private society remains unknown/unreported to the public at this time. However, what is known is that the paid Coordinator of the CACS is Elizabeth White.
The following is from the Salt Spring Climate Action Council Society website (http://climateactionsaltspring.ca/about/ )
About The Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council
The Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council was established in May 2010 to coordinate the development and implementation of a Climate Action Plan for Salt Spring Island. The council consists of representatives of the following agencies and organizations:
Capital Regional District
Islands Trust
Institute for Sustainability, Education and Action
Island Pathways
Salt Spring Island Agricultural Alliance
Salt Spring Island Chamber of Commerce
Salt Spring Island Transportation Commission
Salt Spring Island Water Council
Salt Spring Island Conservancy
Transition Salt Spring
Earth Festival Society
Youth representative, Gulf Islands Secondary School
and up to four members at large with specific expertise and/or interests related to the Climate Action Council’s mandate.
The Salt Spring Island Climate Action Council is a British Columbia not-for-profit society.
(f) Curiously, the CRD Transportation Commission (CRD TC) is listed as a member of the CACS, however, the minutes I have reviewed of the CRD TC, to September 2011, indicate they have not decided whether they will accept an invitation for one of their members to become a Director of the CACS. It is also unclear whether Society Act requirements, with regard to notification of the Province of all Directors has been met by the CACS.
(g) Meanwhile, also unannounced by the Trustees was the morphing of the Water Council, which former CRD Director Holman had founded, into another private not-for-profit Society – the Salt Spring Island Water Council Society (WCS) on July 4, 2011. The founding Directors of the WCS include Ehring, Torgrimson and Hendren. The paid Coordinator of the WCS is Peter Lamb, ex-Chair of the former Water Council. According to CRD documents, Lamb’s current hourly rate is $30/hr.
(h) Both the WCS and CACS addresses of record are Lamb’s. As with the CACS, it is unclear whether Society Act requirements, with regard to notification of the Province of all Directors has been met by the WCS.
From documents I have reviewed, it is clear:
(a) Ehring and Torgrimson, in their private capacities, were two of the founding applicants of both of the private societies;
(b) Ehring and Torgrimson in their private capacities are current Directors of the Water Council;
(c) Ehring in his private capacity is current Chair of the Water Council;
(d) Torgrimson in her private capacity is a Director and current Chair of the Climate Action Council;
(e) Ehring and Torgrimson, in their capacities as Island Trustees, voted to provide funding to the two private societies they helped found, and of which they are Directors;
(f) Lamb (now ex-Chair of the Water Council), is now the Water Council’s paid “Coordinator,” and, was one of the founding applicants of the Climate Action Council Society;
(g) Hendren in his private capacity, was one of the founding applicants of the Water Council;
(h) Hendren in his private capacity is one of the Directors of the Water Council;
(i) Hendren in his capacity as CRD Director evidently provided funding through the CRD for the Water Council Society.
Clare Cullen and Chamber of Commerce.
Clare Cullen, as I mentioned, is a founding Director of the Climate Action Council Society. Her signature appears on the Society application papers dated April 4, 2011. At that time she evidently represented herself as the Chamber of Commerce representative, and did so apparently until a CACS meeting sometime in August 2011 when, according to CACS Chair Christine Torgrimson, in an email to Chamber President Robert Steinbach, Ms. Cullen “announced near the end of the meeting that she was stepping down as a representative of the Chamber because for her own reasons she does not intend to renew her membership in your organization. Incidentally the Council unanimously agreed that Clare should continue as a member-at-large representing small business interests.”
There are two problems with this revelation.
1. According to Chamber of Commerce sources, Clare Cullen ceased to be a member of the Chamber of Commerce on March 31, 2011, four days before she signed the Society’s application papers on April 4, 2011. Further, I understand from Chamber sources she had never reported to the Chamber on any meeting of the Climate Action Council Society. So, it appears Ms. Cullen possibly misrepresented to the Climate Action Council Society, from its formation, which she evidently participated in, through to the August meeting, that she was the Chamber of Commerce representative.
2. How on earth did the Society deem Ms. Cullen to be representative of “small business interests” on Salt Spring?
In the aforementioned email, Torgrimson also stated:
“The Climate Action Council provides notice to its meetings to individual member/directors, including those who represent organizations. We do not send meeting notices to organizations, as their representatives are the member/directors, not the organizations themselves….it is common for a transition in member/directors, and particularly those representing organizations, to take some time to accomplish. Our practice has been to contact the organization and informally work with them – ofthen over a number of months – to find an appropriate Council member to represent them at the table….There is no obligation on the part of the Climate Action Council to include a representative of the Chamber among its members…I would like to invite you personally to attend that meeting and inform members of the Council in what ways the Chamber of Commerce demonstrates that it “has an active interest in climate change issues,” as our membership rules require, and what the Chamber has been doing, or plans to do, with respect to those issues….If the Chamber is interested in having a new representative on the Council, I would ask that you send that request in writing…along with the name and background of your proposed representative and information about their and the Chamber’s commitment to climate action.”
This clearly shows that the CACS is just one more private, selected members only club, formed by the very same small group of people that I named and warned the community about in 2005.
CRD Transportation Commission
On April 12, 2011, at the CRD TC meeting, the adopted minutes indicate at “7.15 Climate Action Council request to meet with SSITC – deferred.
This request technically came from the Climate Action Council and not the Climate Action Council Society, since the Society was not registered until April 20th.
However, since the CRD TC meeting, minutes continue to show no representative has been appointed to the Society.
And yet, as noted above, the CACS website lists the Transportation Commission as a “member” of the Society.
When we go back a bit in time, we find that Andrew Haigh and Nomi Lyonns were appointed by the CRD Transportation Commission, along with Director Hendren to be representatives to the Climate Action Council prior to it becoming a private society. It appears that Haigh and/or Lyonns were accepted into the Council Society as representatives of the CRD TC, without the CRD TC having ever passed a resolution to that effect. In fact, the Commission has been consistently deferring the matter.
Salt Spring Housing Council Society
Another mystery surrounds yet another resolution which occurred at the October LTC meeting.
On October 6, 2011 Torgrimson proposed the following resolution, “That the Salt Spring Island Local Trust Committee dedicate $4,000 from the LTC Local Expense Account (65230) to the Salt Spring Housing Council Society to support capacity-building workshops and/or training opportunities for local affordable housing advocates with a progress report delivered on or before March 15, 2012.” The motion was carried unanimously.
I have done a thorough search at the Societies branch and can find no such entity as the Salt Spring Housing Council Society. I tried a variety of search terms and came up empty handed. I Googled the term, and came up with nothing. It appears the resolution is the first mention of this Society in the public record.
The question I have of the Trustees is this, “Who are the Directors of this purported Society, when was it formed, did you participate in its formation?”
CRD Director Hendren
In my opinion, Director Hendren is a hapless victim of going along with the flow. When he was first elected he canceled funding of the Water Council. The hue and cry from the “usual suspects” pressured him to reinstate the funding. Now, here he is, three years later and caught up in the funding of 2, maybe 3, private societies. On this island, politicians need to be able to differentiate between what “the community” thinks or wants, and what small, self-interest groups, made up of the same people, so vocally say they want.
Where Is This All Headed?
The allegations of conflicts of interest and meeting behind closed doors, outside of the public’s view, which are contained within the Petition filed, appear to be a damning indictment of how our public officials have evidently overstepped clear ethical boundaries in pursuit of their own self interests.
I know all of the accused are “well intentioned” people, and, I know all three are intelligent human beings.
This begs the question why have they acted the way they’ve acted?
The answer is as blindingly clear to me now as it was in 2005. There are those among us who believe so passionately in their self-interests, they feel they are “superior” to others. They believe societal, ethical, moral, and/or legislative laws of transparency, process, accountability, conflict of interest, meeting behind closed doors, cronyism, etc. shouldn’t apply to them, because they are doing what they believe is their own good gods work.
What they have either never realized, or have forgotten, is that they were elected to do our work, under our laws and regulations, in what should be an open and transparent manner to us. Their paychecks for the past three years have been written by us, and, they are accountable to us.
I urge each of them to carefully consider the available options before deciding to have us start paying their legal bills at $500/hr+ each to defend what is, at very least, an indefensible perception of wrong doing.
Thus, I believe their real trial has already begun in the court of public opinion, and, we are about to witness just what they really think of us and the trust we have placed in them.
Stay tuned and subscribe.
islandstrust 