Despite the recent court ruling which by rights should be more closely scrutinized, to all the Petitioners representative of a wide sampling of the community, once again, thank you for bringing this important issue of conflict of interest to the community's attention.
To the Islands Trust and 'Humphreys' too numerous to mention, thank you too, obviously this whole affair has had a constructive impact on policy with the recently released publication reminder for old and new Trustees - "How to Stay Out of Trouble". A detailed explanation of what conflict of interest is and isn't should now be amply clear enough even for future judges. It is surely recommended reading for any elected officials or society directors in general. Better late than never.
To all the secret or otherwise closed societies out there, I hope the next time you consider coming to the taxpayer-funded trough, that you do us all a favour and seek traditional public donations first to test the support validity of your cause and then most certainly recuse yourselves as directors from voting yourself funds if you are the ones in a conflict of interest situation. Again, refer to the Islands Trust publication above if you don't understand the subtler nuances of the legislation.
Paul Marcano
Vesuvius
Michael Cooke Ummm...WHAT did they "get away with"? Did you READ the judgement? I would suggest your posers, er, I mean, posse, look in the mirror when it comes to "Salt Spring Extremism"...you might find what you're opposed to.
ReplyDeletePaul Marcano It is a very complex issue that you would have to have followed in detail, but in short, the Trustees and Garth were noteably informed by the court that they "really should not have proceded as they did" and Trust Council's "How to Stay Out of Trouble" manual for their Trustees distinctly point out the following:
What to do if you have a conflict (or are uncertain):
1. Declare you have a conflict and leave the meeting each time the topic
comes up make sure this is recorded in the minutes applies to trustee participation in meetings of advisory groups too (ie.APC)
2. Don’t participate in any discussion of the topic with other LTC members
3. Don’t vote on the topic Don’t try to influence how other trustees vote, either before, during or after the meeting, directly or indirectly.
Now to the heart of the issue, you have a videotaped meeting where one Trustee offers no comment to a motion to grant funds to a society where the other Trustee is a chair of it. This in itself demonstrates previous discussion or total abandon of discussion, both of which are out of order.
Now I am not sure whether we have an NDP appointed judge in this case ruling on an NDP created organization... but I and others are not amused at the sense of colusion going on here and if pointing it out seems extreme that only illustrates how divided opinion is on this.
Right now the Province should realise that our Conflict of Interest Legislation has in effect been overuled by this judge and I do not think we will hear the end of this soon. This entire ruling was a whitewash of the main point, not whether elected officials were doing good work, but whether they were following even their own Trust Council's "How to Stay Out of Trouble" guidelines...
It is so obvious but really Michael, I understand how close you are to this, so make some attempt to keep your objective mind and realize a lot of people in the community are fuming over this, 15 petitioners from every walk of life is just the tip of the iceberg!
I hope they have enough to appeal this to the Province, otherwise taxpayers are on the hook for more of these shenanigans once the usual bunch are back in power. We can only thank our lucky stars that Mr. Borrowman and Woods did not get in. Peace brother.
Michael Cooke You were never "on the hook" for anything, and you know it. And the "usual bunch", crowding for incorporation, seized on a perceived "conflict of interest" and made many false accusations of wrong-doing, with many further insinuations, which, as, the judge noted, were false. That you were able to incite wrongly justified anger in a large number of people, and with shadow press stir up divisiveness (rather than inclusion) is NOT a matter to be proud of. People were told to think - "They have their hands in the cookie jar". The tactics employed, such as the ambush lawsuit, the false accusations and innuendos (which Booth in particular seemed particularly heinous at), the anonymous rabid websites, etc sickened quite a number of us. What came to mind when you began, urging for a change in government, was advice my old business mentor gave me: Start as you'd like to finish". You yourself would be aware of the I Ching's "In the beginning is the seed. If the seed is not good, what hope of a right ending?" To anyone on the sidelines watching, if that's the form of "governance" you choose, your "method" of talking to others, try to consider why people might distrust you entirely now. I've got no stake either way, but one should stand up to unwarranted bullying, and far from being "victims", you and your rather foolish posse made victims of others. Am I clear? Peace out, Brother.
ReplyDeletePaul Marcano wow... hate to say it but it looks like you need deprogramming.
Paul Marcano or maybe just some shrooms ;-)
Paul Marcano Just to be clear, Saltspring born local, Eric Booth goes beyond the call of duty, when he does his homework, he's been a Trustee and knows indepth what he is talking about - I understand your frustration, but even I have to remind myself that as a thing is viewed... so it appears... it is a tough one, I know. The cult of the Islands Trust has got you by the... well you know. Grab hold tightly... let go lightly. breath.
Michael Cooke No, Paul - as everyone knows, the Trust is not an ideal form of governance. And the CRD's recent change of procedure that monies can only be given to registered non-profits got locally elected Trustees and CRD director into murky waters - but instead of clarifying it with Linda Adams or the Trust or CRD lawyers (who really should have noticed and cautioned them, particularly had there been any wrong-doing) an attack was launched out of right field, vilifying people who were quite innocently working for the public good. Even if they weren't good at it (the coffee company comes to mind), the suggestion "they've" got me by the balls is just an example of making it a sly attack, rather than working for a community where we can hear each other and act from that.
Paul Marcano point well taken re: 'they all should have been cautioned' however anyone elected to office is made aware of conflict of interest 101 when they first go to boot camp orientation... so no excuses whatsoever. Citizens who stand up for due process are hardly bullies especially when said elected officials feign a "did not know" plea. While ignornce may be bliss, taxpayers expect more fiduciary responsibility from those they elect. For the judge to declare such inappropriate behavour in the CRD Director's case that his actions were imprudent one wonders what logic prevails in not finding that the process was improper. I think we have all learned one hard lesson as taxpayers, win or lose in an effort to complain about about a percieved wrong doing by our politicians and we pay the bill to accuse them and to defend them... something is terribly wrong here.
Michael Cooke Yes, something that could have been attended to with respect and civility became a cult clash, and an expensive foray away from useful activity.
Michael Cooke ...but look at us, old men over 60, waving their sticks in the air...
Paul Marcano Yea but someone else once said most sincerely "I am not a crook"... so I am a little gunshy.
ReplyDeleteMichael Cooke Right, Nixon. These people must be THAT bad. At LEAST. That'll keep the drama high. I'm surprised you don't bring in Hitler - oh, wait...that's been done. Again - you're slagging, and starting off on the wrong foot entirely.
Michael Cooke Peace and Love, Brother ...I'm outta here...
Paul Marcano It was not me that started off on the wrong foot, it was the Trustees and their overt disregard for the legal rules of conduct that they coyly claimed ignorance of... that was the part that was not civilized. I hold Nixon in high regard by the by for opening up China to the world... but I have to admit to a profound love of satire and still regard the Bunker Video on YouTube as an apt expression of how a lot of islanders perceived the way the Trustee tried to shut down community rights to video their meetings, invite other trustees from other islands to dialogue with local groups and their most agregious disregard for the local economy with their 11th hour sudden change of view on the Coffee company's greener than green application, leading the applicant on and then curiously denying it based on a point that wasn't even on the table for discussion. Having been a Trust candidate twice since 1996, I have taken more than a casual peanut gallery in how they operate and have watched this monstrosity of bureaucracy double in budget and burdensome redundancy, almost always stretching their mandate beyond the simple land planning committee they were intended to be...
And Michael this is turning out to be a nice healthy public debate... defend them as you have, Facebook will archive this for all time and I am confident that we both have legitimate points to make about this highly divisive and inadaquate form of governance we endure here on Saltspring. I do get the impression that somehow you imagine that with a 45 day limit for citizens to lodge formal complaints that even the police should maybe give suspects a polite heads up before they bother to arrest them. Sorry but in this case regardless of the lenient ruling, the judge still displayed a glimmer of acknowledgement that this was imprudent behaviour. I do not see future trustees making a similar mistake and for that the effort was worth it, if it brings better fiduciary practices into play so that taxpayers are not Willy nilly supporting inappropriate dissemination of their hard-earned dollars.