The POSSE People Opposed to Salt Spring Extremism

Bandwagon Believers

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Sat, 25 Feb 2012 19:40:00 +0000

Warren Buffet recently reiterated a simple truism re: Gold "bandwagon investors make their own Truth... for awhile". I have always extrapolated on such truisms to explore how far you can take them in understanding a deeper truth. Ie: "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" could be broadly rephrased to suggest that "Beauty is in the I of the beholder... along with everything else." One's perceptions even as they are enhanced by technology are still limited by the narrow bandwidth of our human faculties and while we seek to arrive at fundamental conclusions we can rely on, they are forever to be limited by our simply not knowing all the variables and the changing condition of those variables.

Today's access to information over the internet is pretty much an unfiltered array of soapboxes, like this one, with every possible notion and nuance that such a broad spectrum of humanity can conjure up and yet, it is still limited by the level of skill one has in cross-referencing, verifying sources and the real work of researching a topic.

Getting back to "the beholder" I mean to say information from sources other than the internet, primarily ones own experience and observations. As I said, I rely on truisms more than long dissertations because I want to analyse for myself my more immediate experiential perceptions to understand what is actually observable and verifiable within my capacity to do so.

So if "bandwagon investors make their own truth", then I would naturally extrapolate from that that "bandwagon believers make their own truth" as well and if we bring that chicken home to roost we can see what we are up against in our local politics, particularly environmental changes and the general belief that close to $7,000,000 worth of Islands Trust bureaucracy is somehow protecting our environment without even the purchase of one acre of land to preserve. That increasing the budget on one hand and yet spending a further $400,000 in a navel gazing exercise to 'explore a trite policy statement' is somehow a a justifiable or efficient use of our tax dollars.

It all adds up to an extremism that we need to excoriate by seeking to contain The Islands Trust to their simple land planning mandate. Writing long reasoned letters to Trust Council is useless when they openly admit that they are simply playing a numbers game of counting the yeas and the neys as to whether the public is accepting or rejecting their proposed budget increases.

Needless to say, they should take that proposed $400,000 'policy statement discussion' and subtract it from their tax requisition and somehow continue to explore ways to trim their insatiable squandering of our tax dollars on this endless ideological fixation on environment and how it changes like every other aspect of the Universe we know and love.

Weird Science

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:28:00 +0000

Be nice if these guys could get on the 'sane' page. I am talking about new age 21st century freakin' climatologists. It is more like we are witnessing the birth of a new religion with all the classic elements in a kind of tired recipe that most religions are founded on; guilt, wrathfull gods of nature, humanity's sinful ways, heathen deniers and a huge appetite for donations.

One minute you are reading "Met Office releases new figures which show no warming in 15 years (since 1997). The figures suggest that we could even be heading for a mini ice age... Based on readings from more than 30,000 measuring stations, according to the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit", then the next news cycle and blogs galore - suddenly all those scientists are the bad scientists who are irresponsible and clueless.

From the public's non-scientific mindset and with access to this deluge of contradictory data, one wonders about 1 or 2 degree graphic charts expanded vertically to dramatically show some kind of change, any change at all. The so-called hockey stick graph goes higher depending on the proportionate use of graphical design accentuation... dare I say, I miss the days when you could trust science, even its theories. Now there seems an emotional fervour that does not instill much trust at all, in fact it is almost evolved to a faith based system of sorts since only the high priestscientists are supposedly 'in the know'.

Meanwhile, sadly a friend of mine sits out on the deck of a local pub imagining he is on the deck of the Titanic. Any disciplined religion or science that brings on that sort of hopelessness is surely suspect for its extremism.

Being only a virtual realist, I am not sure where that line goes too far over into despair, but it can't be healthy.

Solution: disconnect from the madness, pull the plug on your radio and TV, forget the 11:00 o'clock news blues and then, when you are left to your own resources, you shouldn't find anything quite so urgent as the subtle realization that you are dreaming!

Like now?... http://vimeo.com/35396305

Pecuniary Interest versus Procedural Irregularities

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 03:24:00 +0000

In spirit I supported the Petitioners on behalf of taxpayers, however I was disappointed that the Petitioners themselves neglected to pursue the front and centre issue that a video appeared to show were procedural irregularities.

Rather the Petitioners seemed, from the judgement, to have prioritized inferring direct or indirect pecuniary interest and requesting disqualification. This kind of inference was noteably lacking in evidence or proof despite the structural aspects of the societies allowing for potential remuneration of directors who might one day be ex elected officials. The Judge needed evidence not inference.

Consequently, the judge could only go so far as to conclude in part that..."in these circumstances, the petitioners concerns are understandable. In the sphere of local government politics, it would be in everyone's best interests to ensure that future local government meetings follow properly transparent procedures". Earlier he found that our CRD director had been imprudent yet did not go so far as to say improper in a similar case. His final judgement was not particularly surprising.

Suffice to say that that acknowledgement and the Islands Trust's own "How to Stay out of Trouble" guidelines to conflict of interest issues are about the best we can expect coming out of the community addressing this important issue.

Are Smart Meters too Smart for their own Good?

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:34:00 +0000

Nary a change goes by the board on Salt Spring Island where there is not some extreme group protesting change, as if it were not the fundamental Operating System of the Universe. I think I preferred when it was Global Warming, at least that was tangible, but climate change? How innocuous can you get?

So I'll take two Smart Meters thanks. Why? because the state of artificial intelligence is an unreasonable fear and I fault BC Hydro for choosing such a loaded name for a simple upgrade. What would have been wrong with just saying everyone is getting a new Hydro Meter? People like 'new and improved'. Don't they know that people have an inherent fear of computers to begin with let alone claiming they have humanistic characteristics like intelligence or Smarts?

Anyway just thought I would mention that I would at least like the freedom of choice from my fellow islanders, given that they declared an undemocratically arrived at decision, island-wide ban without asking me. I am hoping that the wireless feature lets me more carefully see why my Hydro bill is where it is at. Too many electronics? Nope, I like to be warm in the winter and I don't like the acrid pollution of wood burning stoves that environmentalists oddly enough don't seem to have a problem with.

Incidently while visiting our friends on Kauai recently, Hydro was going for .45 cents a Klw... can you imagine? How does that compare with our mere .08 cents? The point being that heat or no heat they need the same operating budget. Anyway... looking forward to the future as always.

A Special Thankyou

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Sat, 21 Jan 2012 16:43:00 +0000

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

Court Approved Non Declaration of Conflict to Interest?

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Sat, 19 Nov 2011 19:32:00 +0000

With the first part of the court judgment clearing Garth Hendren of conflict of interest, I say fine but as I posted to the Driftwood article:

Yea, no, I don't buy it. These so called "bullies" were merely attempting to get legal clarity on whether elected officials can set up their own societies and then vote to fund them without declaring their special interest in them. Apparently that's legal now, who knew?

I guess it is open-season on taxpayers who have now been relegated to being a mere ATM of discretionary funds in the hands of our politcians who are now court approved to go forth and multiply their societies ad infinitum.

Thank you petitioners for your valiant efforts on taxpayers' behalf.
The keyword for today is *exasperated* but at least we know one politician who put his balls on the line for taxpayers!

Yes Minister and cozying up to Entropy

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Wed, 02 Nov 2011 16:45:00 +0000

Politicians come and go, convenient fodder for the eyewash we like to call the democratic process but behind the scenes we have the ever-tenacious bureaucrat, planners and consultants with commissions and advisory committees who stay on from election to election. Often unionized there is a set rate of pay with benefits and expense accounts that are simply hardwired to the ever-increasing annual tax requisition with little that any politician can claim to control. Particularly if they are not leadership material.

In our coming election we would be wise to reconsider the commentary of those candidates who express a coziness to become part of this matrix in contrast to leading it. Compromise and concensus are all too often spouted as some kind of ultimate goal when in fact they are just as often the ultimate collusion with mediocre and ineffective solutions, maintaining the status quo and furthering redundancy of yet other levels of governance. We have seen countless examples of our Island Trustees funding redundacy of studies and issues quite outside their land-planning mandate. It is not in our interests as tax payers and it certainly is not in the interest of a community that yearns to grow and evolve towards a more prosperous future.

I would suggest that lack of leadership qualities are most easily assessed when you observe candidates who propose a too compromising concensus of community opinion on decisions that require far more professionalism and leadership. Someone with the audacity to challenge this corrupted notion that somehow the most agreeable decision is the best one when it may simply be more cozy eyewash for masking the entropy of the status quo. Community consultation is only one of many prerequisites to making an effectively sound decision on any given issue and if you are intimidated or cojoled by the process you are not a leader and may as well resign. The worst and most costly decisions are when you let staff overlook things like conflict of interest and opening up the bureaucratic flood-gates before a leader has done their homework.

We say 'we won't be fooled again' yet so many people vote the most 'establishment' candidates everytime! All I can say is look for candidates who really know the 'yes minister' cultural role they will be submerged in and assess whether you think they will understand the full depth of what it means to lead and ultimately rise above this cozy and expensive consensus that results in a community in entropy.

Sometimes you can't vote with your head or your heart but rather rely on your individual gut instincts. Therefore, for what it is worth, I will vote a well-known quantity in former CRD director Dietrich Luth for CRD, and for Islands Trust, most likely Grams while leaning towards Wyatt.

Salt Spring Extremism at its worst!

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Sun, 23 Oct 2011 20:25:00 +0000

I would not have imagined when I started the POSSE blog that we as a community would actually need a POSSE! One that would go after issues that were more than ideological extremism.

This latest fiasco regarding our elected officals appearing to fund their own organizations without declaring their conflict of interest in being members of those same organizations is most egregious. It takes the debate out of the ideological and philosophical disagreements we may have into a terribly legal and ethical divergence. We have never really had to challenge or debate our elected officials on an ethical issue quite as blatantly as what appears to have transpired.

It is a painful community process for a lot of us who at least respected our differences without tending to question the trust we put in our elected representatives' legal and ethical positions or their moral character. We did afterall have a basic trust that our officials were working within legal paramters on our behalf, even if they were a little camera-shy.

Our fundamental trust may unfortunately have been broken with recent revelations. We can either confront the ramifications of not demanding the highest standards for our political representatives or we can take their position, and sweep it under the rug as just an innocent, good samaritan effort made to fund societies with legitimate and beneficial agendas.

I don't think we have the liberty of that kind of choice here. It is a very slippery slope to set any kind of precedent that would endorse such a blatant, conflict of interest modus operendi to prevail. It is just too fraught with all manner of possible consequences for abuse and gaming the system which is why the laws for politicians and organizations are there in the first place.

The problem with just looking at the good works of the Trustees' societies and disregarding the conflict of interest in their decision to self-fund them with tax dollars is that pet projects are often just that, pet projects. And in the case of something still controversial like a "Climate Action Council" one has to acknowledge that some of us simply reject the politically correct notion that the "debate is over" regarding who or what changes the climate on the planet Earth. Notwithstanding, the Federal and Provincial governments already fund 'climate change' research from our taxes which means the Trustees are yet again demonstrating their redundancy in budgeting funds for areas quite outside their land planning mandate.

The bottom line is 'good works' and claiming to have no idea the community had any objections to 'undeclared conflict of interest' voting procedures is more than naive, hardly appears innocent, and when it comes to spending our money, irresponsible to deny the accusation and force expensive legal action.

Any Trustee worthy of the name would have immediately apologised and acknowledged at least the perception of a conflict of interest. They should have rescinded the grants, possibly resigned from the Trust and/or the societies in question and then maybe had the societies re-apply for funding after they were out of office.

The events as depicted, taint both the Island Trust and the societies they helped to found.

Well what else could they possibly have said?

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Wed, 19 Oct 2011 19:55:00 +0000

If ignorance of basic, common sense, conflict of interest law is in fact the excuse the Trustees and Mr. Hendren are falling back on (predictable actually) then it only tells the community just how deep the problem may be engrained in our broken governance model. Surely re-imbursement and a complete Trust-Wide review/audit should be the least the courts decide to do.

It is outrageously simplistic to say 'I did not know', when all three of our elected officials are clearly professionals and indeed should know the basics of conflict of interest rules regarding tax payers' money and their fiduciary responsiblities. It is difficult to imagine they are choosing to act so intellectually ignorant, like children caught with their hands in the cookie jar and it sounds like close to $50,000 worth of cookies too! Unbelievable!

It will surely be interesting to see who among the current crop of candidates come out in support of this kind of did-not-know-it-was-a conflict of interest. eeaaahhhtttt sorry, wrong answer Trustees and Hendren. Good luck with that one. Their little redirect that the community should have said something, well, how about declaring your conflict of interest up front and put the requests for funds on the agenda in advance so we could comment hmmmm? - the gall!

AND THEN to go further and say this is going to cost us to go to court to defend their ignorance? We can only hope that it will save us money in the long run by upholding the precident that this is NOT acceptable behaviour from our elected officials!

Thank you petitioners for bringing to the light of day this kind of blantant disregard for fundamental political principles of right and wrong. Clearly this demonstrates why the community has a right to have tax payer funded meetings videotaped. Once again thank you Jill Treewater for your perseverence in recording for posterity meetings few have time to attend.

Dismayed and concerned for Salt Spring's future. :(

This is not a Witch Hunt!

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Sat, 15 Oct 2011 16:43:00 +0000

It may behove those crying 'witch hunt' to maybe re-read the 'facts' at www.islandstrust.org where former Trustee Eric Booth has done an exemplary and objective profile on this issue. But look, I have to agree with George Erhing's 1988 quote "The rules are the rules. You will follow them and we will honour you. Break them and you are dust we kick from our cleats. You get what you deserve".

Certainly true in cases where your actions affect other people (and their taxes) , problem is with those victimless crimes like drinking alcohol or smoking pot after a solid day's work, relax and float downstream and all that...

But recent events at LTC meetings where video evidence appears to show a propensity to allocate tax payers' funds to pet projects that the Trustees themselves are directors and beneficiaries of is quite another matter! And it is not about highways paved with golden intentions here, it is about the fundamental precident it sets for disregarding conflict of interest protocals and that is all that is being addressed in the court action being brought against our local politicians.

If they are convicted, I think George's 1988 view holds and both Trustees probably would have to accept the consequences of their actions and hopefully apologise, possibly resign immediately, all in good faith... and return the money of course. He and Christine can re-apply once they are out of office, the Trust is still going to be generous to its friends with our money. Conflict of Interest law is pretty straight forward and I am rather surprised our politicians chose to look the other way when it was staring them right in the face. Just saying.

It will be interesting to see who comes out to support this kind of disregard for conflict of interest and I agree with Mr. Buckwald it will happen under a municipal model as well... human nature is what it is.

I am just suggesting that a more centralized governance at least gives tax payers one roof under which to monitor fiduciary impropriety. Imagine the job of monitoring what we have now? It is all over the map and it is getting very expensive to manage as islanders. No witch hunt here... no need to hunt in fact, it is all happening in broad daylight.

The citizens launching this court action are to be commended for paying attention to our political process, the players, and how our tax dollars are spent. Most of us are way too busy in our daily jobs to have the energy to scutinize what goes on in meetings held at 1:00pm in the afternoon. We can certainly thank Jill Treewater for keeping at least a video record of these meetings, otherwise how would we have ever known or had the evidence of what is happening at these meetings?

Let's not forget how the Trustees so fervently tried to ban video taping at publicly funded meetings.

Flame burns Moths...

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Fri, 14 Oct 2011 15:06:00 +0000

It would seem the flames of easily accessible taxpayer cash funneled by our politicians to various pet projects, set up by these self-same local politicians may have been too easy to resist.

It is actually not a bad little financial scheme, not quite a ponzy scheme but it certainly seems to work multiple times.

First, you start a pet project on a topical fad like Al Gore's 'climate change', you make informal application and motions at a Local Trust Committee yourself because you are not only the representive chair of the pet project but conveniently, the elected Trust representative too, then you say things like 'no problem we have done this before' and speak about the project in glowing third person terms... "they this and they that', don't post it as an agenda item to advise the public, wait for an LTC meeting that is almost devoid of an audience, (after making them the most boring events ever) then slam bam thank you taxpayer, you vote yourselves the cash with barely a discussion or sign of even an application with details as to deliverables.

It is all very nice, TRUSTEE <> CASH <> PET PROJECT <> ADVISORY REPORT <> TRUSTEE and then it all appears to loop back for another dip into the bottomless cash pot at our expense! Yes very nice indeed...NOT!!!

I am sure we can look forward to the double-speak explanations. Cries that this is some kind of witch hunt and various other redirects down the highway of 'good intentions'.

One wonders how the basics of their civic understanding of 'conflict of interest' emblazened in their own pet project rules (article 13) could have been stretched to rationalize such lack of fiduciary behaviour?

Not to mention that we have all wondered why the Islands Trust budget has been ballooning year after year after year to almost $7,000,000 million???? The Trust is a simple land-planning function for crying out loud, that's it, and it is commanding a municipal sized budget? (Check Trust Budget Clock top right)

Well if any of these allegations are true, heads should roll before the election this fall and they should roll rather quickly if the video evidence for all to see is as matter-of-fact as it looks, not to mention cheques cashed, recent 2011 dates of the formation of these pet projects and who knows how far this house of cards will fall!

Folks, Salt Spring has come of age, we really need to move towards a Municipal model of governance and centralize our services and tax expenditures. All of these little groups are going to be impossible to monitor and hold accountible for the tax money they absorb and now if true, some of them seem to in effect be simply giving cash to themselves!!

Unbelievable if true and certainly unconscionable!

They always say "follow the money trail", ideological differences aside, this latest news is just sad and embarrassing for our community political persona.

Like Moths to the Flame

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Thu, 18 Aug 2011 19:49:00 +0000

There are a lot of ideas floating around out there about strategies for changing the composition of the Islands Trust with fresh and thoughtful new candidates this fall. I liked the TAG team's book idea that might be used to explain the Islands Trust in layman's terms to the general voting public. If you are part of the non-voting majority who are not 'into' politics, believe me, you would hardly know the role of the CRD, who your MLA is, your MP or what Trustee goes with which bureaucracy, so maybe at least an in-the-mailbox pamphlet of some kind might not be a bad idea.

The hierarchy of governance and the idea that Salt Spring is different and creative enough to come up with something unique is now seen as an almost impossible task without legislative changes at the Provincial level. Despite what former Bowen Island mayor Lisa Barret floated to us during our last incorporation study, the Province's ministers are pretty adament that if we want local change we have to work within the existing Trust/CRD structure.

So what is the best approach? Personally I think ALL ideas should remain on the table since we are now a multi-tasking society. We can accomplish in shorter order any number of things through the existing technological network and in that we are indeed unified.

As the panorama of blogs increase exponetially it is clear that self-expression and networking presents us with the challenging concept that 'disunity can be a force that unifies us', Expressing and sharing what we are thinking and feeling individually benefits an increasing community awareness that reflects on itself. This will result in change for the better simply due to a broader sampling and exposure to diverse opinions.

Afterall, Look at recent events on the island of Iceland!

Oddly enough our 'unified disunity' has inadvertently caused a rethink of important changes to the RAR bylaw 449. It has also observably changed the way our Trustees treat 'we' the rest of the community and exposed deficiencies in a Trust mandate that cannot represent all our needs and services requirements. Neverthless we should still make every attempt to elect candidates who will be onboard with a better balance of environmental, economic and social priorities.

In our particularly rural perspective, from the extreme notion that "you can just get offa ma property' to the more expensive thrust of recent court challenges, we have made it clear that we are not amused by what is happening to our property rights!

Across the spectrum of our intellectual understanding of what we think is needed in governance, sadly bureaucracies epitomize the eternal fight with 'city hall'. I still don't really buy that incorporation would change this dynamic or the cost but a broader mandate of representation is critical at this point.

So be careful all you moths who might choose to fly close to the flame of power, assimulation seems the better part of valour once you are in the driver's seat as an elected representative. The fickle public who thought you were so great to vote in, inevitably will turn and toss you out with barely a thank you. See Obama Optimism 101.

That said I wish to thank our local Trustees for their public service and wish them well in their retirement this fall. I am sure they did the best they could under the circumstances of our broken governance structure, a structure that as yet has no mandate to speak for the economic and social problems we face in the future. No matter who we vote in, we cannot give our Trust representatives powers they don't have, they already presume erroneously to expand their mandate. It's a mandate that needs legislative updating or we need to become a municipality.

Robots Should Pay Income Tax too!

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Tue, 09 Aug 2011 18:49:00 +0000

Off topic... Perhaps it is time that robots paid Income Tax too... I mean, mechanization hardly adds anything to the community otherwise... would it not be fairer to ask robots to pay their fair share too? We are taxed when we work, why shouldn't mechanized robotics contribute too? This is an area where the economy absorbs a bunch of invisible dollars that are no longer circulating in the community, yet the work is still being done... products are still being created... profits are up.

It used to be that more people had day jobs, they left work, stopped off at the grocery store or picked up a new item of clothing or whatever... machines don't do that, they just keep busy producing the stuff we consume and yet why don't they pay an Income Tax on what they are 'earning'? Seems extremely unfair, especially since they would hardly care or notice.

The tax collected could be used to pay people for a lot of evolving new 21st Century jobs that have yet to be acknowledged or compensated for. Like uploading globally accessible data to the Internet, photos, videos, writings etc. ad infinitum. This is obviously the 'new work' so many people are doing and they are adding immensely to our cultural and societal enrichment. Now that the information and content is digital and forever, it has its own intrinsic long term value to all of us who love doing a Google search and benefit from the results.

I think it is time we recognized the time and energy people put into adding to this global database and I think we can fund it by creating an Income Tax for all the robots, all those mechanized entities that earn but don't contribute back to the community.

Afterall it was the promise of the future that we would only have to spend a few hours a day working and the rest of the time doing what we love to do. I say NOW is the time to look at innovative strategies for redefining what "work is" and compensating anyone who is adding something to our cultural enhancement. I certainly appreciate the vast wealth of data I have access to and I hope it grows. An income tax for Robots would provide the funds to eliminate this illusion we have that there is an unemployement problem when in fact people are still working... they are just not getting paid!

We need a new employer, perhaps a "Ministry of Content and Information Dissemination" (actually why not just rename Ministries of Social Services and Unemployement Benefits?). And we do not need further value judgements on the value content and of work whether it is home-making a family or uploading a video for all to enjoy. Work done that benefits others is work that should earn a wage, a minimum wage at least! Extraordinary effort should be rewarded more of course.

Great, yea, super, but...

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Mon, 08 Aug 2011 00:05:00 +0000

So the Trustees did manage to pass Bylaw 448 without too much caffuffle, holding a public hearing timed as it was on a beautiful summer evening in August (luckily my car battery had died when I went to try and attend). I think the community can thank the few others who showed up to oppose aspects of this bylaw for coming out and ACTUALLY INFLUENCING our Trustees to change their tune a bit! Thanks Norbert and Drew especially for pleading our case, economic needs and desire to see the Trust work with us as opposed to agin us.

Notwithstanding their compromise, I still believe the Trustees are over-reaching their original land-use planning mandate once a permit to build is acquired. I do no accept nor regard any attempts they make to pass redundant noise bylaws, already covered by the CRD taxes we've paid, or more importantly, who and how many people may be employed in a home-based business. Just how many complaints have warranted the expense to us for this bylaw adventure into social engineering?

Since all my employees are 'virtual' I doubt it will ever affect me personally but I still hope the general public is not just accepting these over-reaching bylaws as anything more than additional, unchallenged, presumptive, Islands Trust policy notions. I think most of us can see that they have stretched themselves pretty thin here trying to make work for themselves and their planners as the Budget clock approaches 3 million tax dollars spent since March 11th...

Attacking businesses like Mr. Blaire Howard's is an unconscionable waste of our tax dollars. It is not Mr. Howard's role to be policing who signs up for his services. If the Trustees feel a property is being rented to vacationers illegally then they should have the responsibility to challenge the land-owner individually, not a business that is merely a liaisoning service and one that indirectly infuses our economy with much needed tourist dollars.

And speaking of extremism, why on earth is this case inconveniently being heard in North Vancouver? Is this the Islands Trust's strategy for keeping individual challenges to a minimum and expenses high for unfortunate individuals caught in their web of mistrust? If so I would say "Bring the Trust Home" so we can all witness their inappropriate spending of our tax dollars while attacking productive members of the community.

When are the Trustees going to stop trying to criminalize, contain and restrain the energy needed for healthy community growth? Would it be asking too much for them to stop imagining worse case scenarios and rather show the community a little Trust? This last bylaw compromise may have seemed like an olive branch but it really only re-inforces the notion that their mandate extends now to internal business operations, employees needed etc. One wonders during the harvest if 10 grape pickers would now be considered 'illegal'?

NEW CHAPTER: Hang em and Drown em? Geessh!

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 22:07:00 +0000

This week's Driftwood featured a disturbing accusation, albeit unsubstantiated, by our local Trustee Christine Torgrimson wherein she claims threats of hanging, drowning and being kicked off the island! This is certainly a matter I would hope she has advised the Police of, as they are serious charges against community members and we need to know who precisely is behind such threats... to anyone on this island.

However, Trustee Torgrimson's astute political instincts still seem sufficiently sharp enough to use these vague and unsubstantiated threats to further attempt to divide our community's voices of reason. She seems content with leveling yet more accusations of being ani-Trust and anti-American rather than actually hearing the serious concerns of the local citizenry.

It has been said that we did not reject the Trustee's bylaw 449 because we did not understand it, rather we rejected it because it was convoluted in its definitions and lacked a credible foundation of mapping. It was a blanket approach which did not clarify precisely which lands and fish needed protecting from development.

The Trustee's article goes on at great length to attempt to tie-in bylaw 449 in with a popouri of 'world problems', from the tragedy of 9/11 to attributing 'climate change' to the rainy days we tend to have here on the wetcoast. Unfortunately we are left with an evolving portrait of someone attempting a global perspective (or is that a Google perspective?) yet demonstrating a serious lack of local perception as to what is relevent to our actual community right here.

Too much information in a global information age needs a clear and objective mind and back when Ms. Torgrimson revealed she was worried about "industrial and commercial sprawl" when reviewing Mickey's Coffee Company's application, she was clearly hallucinating a distorted American perspective onto a small island business proposal which was the cleanest, greenest proposal to cross any Trustee's desk in years!

And speaking of this American perspective and her claims of outbursts from people about not being "born in Canada"; as an expatriot American myself, I appreciate and firmly believe that Canadians have a right to ensure that American or any other country's politics do not unduly run or influence local governance. We certainly saw what happened when the Trustees used American municipal pay-rate models to justify their own 100%+ pay-raises in their last budget!

And isn't it interesting how the very discord Trustee Torgrimson complains about is of her own making even within the body of her article? We've all seen how the Trustees, post-Artspring debacle, have continued a mission in the press to fuel disunity. They continue with negative accusations and generalizations about the majority of us who opposed bylaw 449. It has been called "divide and conquer" and we see now first hand how it works, subtle? NOT!

In my opinion the Trustee's July 20th, Driftwood article "Can the community find some common ground?" shows a classic portrait of an overly sensitive, guilt-ridden-sharing, almost evangelical environmentalist who has lost her perspective on local issues and feels threatened by a community that disagrees with her.

Extreme Trustee's hysteria over the problems of the whole planet are simply not what homeowners are paying taxes to support. This little multi-million dollar Trust land-planning committee that Christine and George have been elected to is merely about our local island land use. Any attempt to expand that mandate out to the infinitely eternal nature of the world's problems is a legally questionable waste of our tax dollars!

As much as Trustee Torgrimson's article was supposed to be a plea for finding common ground, it seemed off-the-wall, accusational, continued to demonize opposing opinions and then managed to lay a lather of worldly guilt and uncertainty onto a paradisical part of the world that is pretty removed from such conditions.

Ultimately 10,000 people on Salt Spring Island can do very little to change global climate (assuming we should be tinkering with the weather at all), and even IF we all went back to horse and buggies, how is that going to influence millions of people in New Delhi, New York City, LA or Hong Kong? or their local weather patterns for that matter?

The Trustees seriously compromise their fiduciary responsibility to islanders when they expound on questionable science and then try to design bylaws based on 'world cafes' of environmental opinion. These bylaws are locally binding and affect real people and property values and we certainly did not misunderstand that much about bylaw 449!

PS. No matter how much redirect we see, it is important to keep our eye on the local ball game, the Trust Budget has now spent something to the tune of approx. $2,501,081.82 since March 11th! We need to continue to question the appropriate spending of our tax dollars and any attempt to expand the Trust mandate beyond the original legislation.

Forward to the Past?

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Fri, 15 Jul 2011 09:39:00 +0000

After listening to the local radio interview with George Ehring and Garth Hendren on the future of Salt Spring I was only mildly amused that for most of the show we heard little about the future besides some foreboding logic that it was going to be really different (duh) but it did not sound like in a good way.

Oddly enough George alluded to the notion that the future of Salt Spring might very well look more like the 'sixties' than anything else... which we were amused to note was before the Trust came into existence!!! Nice one, maybe those really were the good ole days.

The reality is that for all the efforts of the Islands Trust to slow growth in these islands both of our elected representatives admitted that growth patterns here in the islands were pretty much the same as anywhere else and that there was nothing unusual going on. Except when we realize that they would both like to be paid double for guarding our precious drawbridge from potential development in the coming, post-baby boom environment.

Seemed like a lot of double-speak and incoherent logic was spoken by both representatives and for all their intellectual understanding of the machinations of local governance, they still seem, and I would say particularly, George seemed incredulous that anything they are doing or not doing might cause a general public disapproval of their performance.

The fact that George can, with a straight face still stand by his 11th hour flipflop on the Coffee Company decision blows the proverbial mind. Such a trigger issue as that one can not be just swept under the rug and forgotten in a 'nameless' reference. Saying "we approve 95 percent of business applications" without qualifying how many have been submitted is pretty suspicious math too I might add.

How many complaints about Vacation Rentals are worth all the legal fees we as tax payers are going to have to pay (over $100,000?, $200,000?) for yet another example of Trustees attacking a local business and venturing into social engineering. These Trustees are way over the top in disturbing the otherwise peaceful tranquility of this wonderful paradise.

Now, unsatisfied with a summer respite from their horrendous bylaw 449, their attempts to test legalizing a few rental suites will surely be encouraging the chosen few that are made legal to 'anonymously' snitch on those which remain competitively illegal. Can anyone else see that this will only result in more divisiveness and acrimony?

THEN... when people complain, they will be demonized as anti-Trust when it is the Trustees who demonstrate time and again that they simply don't trust us!

Sequester the Islands Trust?.

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Mon, 11 Jul 2011 21:14:00 +0000

The Provincial Liberal Government should realize that the Islands Trust, (once defined as merely an associated NDP agency of the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs), has gained an extreme, autonomous independence from Provincial control. And they appear to have done so directly proportionate to reductions in Provincial funding over the years. What was once an over 95% Provincially funded entity has, over the years, completely reversed proportion of responsibility onto Gulf Islands taxpayers with the Province hardly contributing anything anymore!

Should we not as taxpayers be asking the Province to step back into funding the Trust's budget? Certainly the Province should at least acknowledge accountability and control of the Islands Trust budget and they should do so for fiduciary reasons on behalf of all those British Columbians the Trust was created to protect these fair lands. The Province has a responsibility to regain the reins of Governance from an independent NDP entity that is not actually mandated to govern, particularly in an unincorporated district where the decentralized costs of services and redundant bylaws can otherwise run wild.

Under the original agreement, the Islands Trust Act legislation was created to simply advise on matters of environmental concerns and only later on was it given its limited mandate to serve as a land-planning function through its Local Trust Committees. That certainly does not provide a balance of local government services worthy of the name governance.

Clearly as the Province has stepped back from its responsibility, the 26 Island-wide Trustee's have had free range to squander tax dollars for years on all manner of issues quite outside their land planning function. While it may have served the Trustees well in increasing their self-proclaimed 'governance' power base and bureaucracy, I'd wager they have done so at our expense and to the detriment of our fragile local island economies.

The pattern of performance we see now is less service, fewer and fewer development permit approvals, undefined guidelines within application requirements, 100% non-refundable fees and a recent bylaw 449 suggestion that homeowners might be responsible to fund their own mapping of waterways on their properties! All this less service with more regulation along with increased budgets year after year is quite unacceptible, no?

Add up the millions of dollars spent on annual Trust budgets since 1974 ask yourselves what have we got to show for it? Has the Trust purchased one tree?, one acre of land?, saved one molecule of clean air?, one degree of so-called global warming? Nada. The Salt Spring Conservancy has a better organizational track record for that and they do it all through donations! Imagine if we gave them our millions.

ONE POSSIBLE SOLUTION IF WE DON'T GET A PROVINCIAL REVIEW
As a unified group of island Canadians and British Columbians we should consider, after the debacle of the Salt Spring Coffee Company decision and this last RAR bylaw fiasco, that the Islands Trust may need to be sequestered through a court action brought against it by island taxpayers. The charge might be two-fold; a charge of fiduciary mis-management of our money, inadvertently affecting our local island economies, and a constitutional challenge to the presumption that they are a local government where none can legally exist in an unincorporated district.

Afterall, since when is a single-function, associated agency of the Provincial Ministry of Municipal Affairs, a bonified local government? 'Elected' Trustees do not define a Trust as a Government no matter how many times you let it roll off your tongue, and ultimately the Province should not be allowed to stretch the definition either!

The reality is that since the inception of the NDP legislation that created the Islands Trust Act in 1974, the Islands Trust is no longer perceived by many island residents as acting in the interests of residents but rather in the interests of expanding its own power base and bureaucracy.

Of course to add insult to injury, our tax dollars are used against us in funding organizations and advisory commitees that result in an increasingly regulatory rural lifestyle. In many respects we fund their legal fights with those of us who resist their often innane policies and bylaws. Policies and bylaws I might add, that easily target the little guy and simply do not apply to the real and larger environmental culprits! What up with that?

Once again I have to apologise for the length of this entry, it is a complex issue.

Watch For Clones

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Fri, 08 Jul 2011 08:16:00 +0000

It bears repeating a mantra that the 1996 Marcano and Clarke Expedition to find the Object of the Trust came up with... at election time we should once again "Watch for Clones".

It is also important as I learned on this evening's radio broadcast of Trust Matters (AKA "The Troublemakers") that we all need to avoid referencing the faceless entity organization we know of as the Islands Trust and rather begin referring more directly to the politicians themselves.

If we want change it is the Trustees that wield the power of the brush and it is they we should be addressing and attributing responsibility. For instance in Volume 1 of our Community Plan... section A.9.1 reads: “This plan can be amended by the Trust Committee at its own initiative...” I never thought that was such a great clause but maybe it has some merit if the right Trustee takes the initiative to create a little balance in their bylaws.

Also, when I send feedback via the Islands Trust website to a Trustee, the submission form asks if I would like an email response, having clicked yes... the silence has been long and deafening even though I am generally my usual cordial self, albeit critical of Trust policies, yet so far never a response to a genuine submission. hmmmmm, perhaps I will try a form letter ;-) Knock Knock who's there?

Trust gets the feedback they deserve: Mostly form letters?... pfft.

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Wed, 06 Jul 2011 21:33:00 +0000

Islands Trust chair Sheila Malcolmson at times reveals a certain disdain for the public process through a generally condenscending demeanor at meetings and in particular, her extremely transparent, read-between-the-lines public statements.

Recently the Islands Tides, wrote in another read-between-the-lines fashion, that "The Local Trust Committee has received 30 individual letters in favour of the bylaw and 60 letters (mostly form letters) against it". "Form letters" commented Malcomson "are less helpful for understanding the issues".

Of course we have all seen plenty of form letters promoted by both supporters and non-supporters of this bylaw 449.While I am not personally partial to form letters, for many people they simply help encapsulate issues for them and offer a legitimate articulation for how they feel regardless of their own writing skills. Given that the Islands Trust and Trust Council has more than amply demonstrated that they look at public feedback not on the basis of its content but rather whether it is simply a yea or ney, well, let's face it, a form letter may be about as much effort as anyone should bother with when communicating with this legislative aberration.

Who knows what it is?, what exactly can it be in an unincorporated district? Is a Trust a Trust or a body of governance by committee?, is a ditch a stream and visa versa? We still await a Provincial Review of the Trust Act to help us out here. Me thinks it is just another overblown committee.

In a Nutshell

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 17:25:00 +0000

The Salt Spring Chamber of Commerce has put the Trust's proposed bylaw into a clear and concise context: "The legislation as now written will cut a wide swath across service industry workers and substantially impact jobs on the island. This will further differentiate and stratify economic and social classes, negatively impacting the social welfare and fabric of the island".

We the residents applaud these insights and are gratified that more and more organizations are speaking up on issues of local governance and well they should in our unincorporated district. It is our Chamber of Commerce, the Conservancy and Social housing groups who are all part of a balanced perspective that can harmonize the community around sound Economic, Social and Environmental principles. The Islands Trust is but a small part of the total picture of local governance and should stop demonstrating otherwise.

FEAR: A Predictable Trust Redirect away from their failed bylaw.

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 16:48:00 +0000

Lest anyone presume otherwise I don't dislike the police, among other valuable services, they protect our property rights and civil liberties, unlike the Islands Trust who show a continued propensity to trample on those rights.

Further to the issue of a unique police presence at the last meeting (and I am not suggesting the Trust called the police themselves), the Islands Trust chair certainly made no diffusive efforts to ask the police to wait outside with their guns. She thus could have assured the attending public that this was NOT a 'dangerous to be at' public meeting. In fact the Trustees and their followers have predictably gone on in interviews with the press (watch and see tomorrow's Driftwood focus) to promote the fear factor that "some people felt unsafe" when in fact the only unsafe feeling people have had regarding this bylaw's distortion of the RARs is the threat it has to jobs, property rights and costs to homeowners!

Remember, that with the removal of the defining words "fish bearing" in the Trust's version of the original Provincial legislation, the Trust has effectively defined all trickles, rivulets and waterways, ditches etc. ad naseum as 'protected wetlands of some kind'. The absurdity of this and the impression the Trust promotes that those opposing this bylaw are somehow dangerous or a threat to the community safety. That is what I really dislike.

We can now all see from Trustee Malcomson's statements in the Times Colonist that the Trust wasted no time in getting out to promote the fear factor predictably wanting to redirect attention from their failing bylaw, only to try and marginalize people opposed to it as being Trust bashers to be feared.

But you know what? we who oppose this bylaw are still part of the greater community at peace, living in paradise. Perhaps we are only the silent majority waking up to find that we've allowed a small group (who can attend 1:00 PM Trust meetings when everyone is at work), to speak anonymously, off-camera on our behalf for far too long.

We are no threat, in fact many of us are normally of the laisse-faire crowd when it comes to regulations and yes, we get offended that we would be characterized as unruly for speaking out about our concerns, whether it is this bylaw or another, that is what we dislike.

Trust cancels RAR hearing "Until Further Notice"

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Fri, 24 Jun 2011 18:59:00 +0000

In a sudden press release, I found it a tad disingenuous of Trustee Sheila Malcomson to insinuate that perhaps now that the 'larger' community is showing up at Trust's meetings, that some people felt 'unsafe'. “We did our best to accommodate the large group interested in the proposed bylaw, but after Wednesday night’s meeting we heard two things that changed our minds about re-opening the public hearing on Saturday. We heard that Saturdays in the summer are too busy for residents to attend meetings at short notice. We were also dismayed to hear after the meeting at ArtSpring that some people felt unsafe". I know I felt 'unwanted' and intimidated with the strong police presence they had there.

True enough the majority of the crowd was not on-side with a bylaw that stretched one's nightmare imagination so easily by deleting a simple qualifying couple of words... 'fish bearing' - once they removed that important qualifier from the original Provincial RAR waterways legislation, all bets were off and suddenly they had a 'custom' bylaw regulating ditches as streambeds, bogs and swamps and rivulets and runoff from peoples' roofs and home gardens all catagorized as 'protected watersheds' - totally bogus and absolutely over the top, another 'classic' Islands Trust attempt to expand its "NO land-use planning mandate". Geesh!

But one always likes to hear officials say "cancelled until further notice" when it comes to incessant regulation creation and maybe now residents can get on with enjoying their summer and be refreshed and alert to voting this bunch out in the fall!

I do not remember a group of Trustees who have agitated our community as much as this LTC, from their arrogant approach to our needing their permission for free inter-island dialogue with other Trustees, to admonishing video recording of speakers at publicly funded meetings, to their suspicious post-editing of minutes of meetings and their seeming disregard for public 'content' submitted. Even Trust Council seems perversly ignorant of acknowledging content in submissions in favour of merely counting them as yeas and neys over any given issue. It seems we are not actually heard or listened to, rather 'we the little people' are only counted as agreeing or disagreeing and if we disagree we are of course characterized as rabble-rousers.

Hopefully the over 100% higher pay increases they voted themselves on March 11th will bring on a vast hoard of unemployed islanders to apply for these Trust positions. Afterall, it is one of the few job openings left and it is certainly free for anyone to run for the position, one needs no particular credentials to be 'environmentally minded' as we all know. Maybe we will luck out and vote in some regular rural lifestyle candidates more interested in enabling our community rather than shutting it down. With only 13 inhabited islands in the Trust area and over 100 uninhabited islands why doesn't the Trust focus on those islands?!

Community offended by Police presence at Trust meetings!

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Thu, 23 Jun 2011 18:08:00 +0000

It is an absolute outrage that the Islands Trust would allow police to intimidate community free speech in a publically funded forum!!! One can't help but reflect back on the Ehring Bunker Video on YouTube and wonder if it was not in fact a preview of things to come. Anyone on either side of the Islands Trust debate who is not outraged by this blatant display of police authority to intimidate community debate is seriously somnombulent and oblivious of basic civil liberties in a free and open democracy. Of course it remains to be found out as to who actually called the police to be at this meeting? Do they usually go to Trust meetings?

AND BY THE WAY: None of the so-called video rules the Trust attempts to convey apply to publically funded meetings. If someone is out in the public domain they should be expected to be captured by any number of recording devices. If I am capturing video for personal use to share with friends and family who cannot attend meetings, it would be ludicrous not to record the person speaking. We are perfectly at liberty to video tape anyone at a public meeting and the courts will support that in a democracy. I urge videographers archiving these meetings to capture the speakers too, otherwise we have no way of knowing without body language just what the total communication picture is. Besides, the Trustees are not what these meetings are about, it is about the community and its right to speak freely.

Yesterday's overflow of people concerned about bylaw 449 should have been treated with more respect and the Trust and its followers should realise there is afterall a community outside their little private club. But what I found most interesting is that islanders en masse somehow have managed by sheer numbers to delay passage of this unpopular "Salt Spring customization" of the Provincial RAR. Unfortunately now that the meeting has been moved to 10:00 AM Saturday at the school gymnasium, the likelihood of overflowing that venue with over 700 people does not seem likely... but who knows? In principle I would not have thought 'showing up" for a meeting would be so strategically affective... hmmmm --- but again it is important to realize that the Islands Trust has always promoted a peculiar silence at their meetings which according to Robert's Rules ensures that they get the consent they are look for.

Silence is always taken as consent so speak up, write in, demonstrate how you feel or forever hold your peace and of course silently pay ever higher fees and taxes!

Police at Trust Meetings now? what next? jail for videographers? Geesh.

Does the Islands Trust suffer from 'solipsism syndrome'?

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:52:00 +0000

Apparently NASA coined the mental illness know as 'solipsism syndrome' - the overwhelming feeling that nothing is real, that all is a dream. Perhaps living on an island paradise can sometimes bring this on and although they say 'no one is an island unto themself', our local Trustees sure exhibit aspects of this syndrome when they imagine they are an autonomous entity unto themselves with no sense of understanding the reality of what healthy communities need to survive in the 21st century.

I pointed out in my1996 campaign something I referred to as The Creed of the Cult : " Members of the Islands Trust and its closed circle of a few hundred associates have, through a form of intellectual incest developed such a fear of outside interests, that ‘development and growth’, so natural to a community has slowly assumed ‘evil’ connotations. These outward fears only further confirm a lack of inner growth and development that is so important to the human condition. "

I have not moved from that perception much since and for all intents and purposes feel it has gotten infinitely worse as Trust Council has incorporated policy upon policy further entrenching the Trust into island community discourse in our unincorporated area. Whether it is a 'code of conduct' not to allow free and open discourse between communities and Trustees without their permission or their attempts to control video taping at meetings, they continue to become more and more insular and autocratic.

Back in 1996 when I ran for Islands Trust and garnered maybe 300 votes out of 3000 there were 8 candidates running so I did not feel too bad knowing about 300 people might have agreed with my platform
archived here: http://www.isleofviews.com/mcexped/election.html
Running for office was fun and I highly recommend it to people so inclined. Lately I have even fantasized about 1000 people march of unemployed suddenly deciding this fall election to run for what is now a comfy $30,000 position on Trust Council. Looking at what happens when a 1000 people show up for a Trust meeting one can only imagine the fun of 1000 candidates!!! And Why not? it is a job up for grabs and costs nothing to run. But the bottom line is that running for Trust is a chance to really participate in the democratic principles of free speech with a bonus that win or lose you can indirectly influence public opinion and other candidates to perhaps address issues they might not otherwise be inclined towards speaking about.

I should point out though that in 1996 I found it rather appalling to hear from voters that Trust supporters by and large were of the mindset to support bureaucracy for bureaucracy sake, seeing it at as a simple panacea for uncontrolled development on the islands. There were also a good number of people who having themselves found paradise on our island, felt it was time to pull up the drawbridge.

Of course such notions as a Tsawwassen like Ferry solution in Fulford or a Tidal Electric Dam bridge to Maple Bay don't get taken seriously on Salt Spring as "Simple Solutions to Salt Spring Problems". Convenience and Efficiency are afterall not part of our rural lifestyle, yet paradoxically tons of Trust regulations and an Official Community Plan bigger than Victoria's are!!!

The result is we see their continued adventures at tax payers expense into all manner of areas beyond their land planning mandate into air, water, the Feds shorelines, the CRD, transportation and now private home vegetable gardens! Perhaps the 'accountability and transparency issue' that should be number one is to request a forensic audit of legitimate expenditures by our Local Trust Committee. See a comprehensive list of the millions of dollars spent on Trust individual "suppliers" at http://www.islandtagteam.com/

Clearly the Trust as an Institution is exhibiting some kind of mental disorder in their blatantly unrealistic disregard for community economic needs and I am just putting it out there, perhaps for any doctors qualified to form a diagnosis, but it looks to me like "solipsism syndrome".

HARBOUR HOUSE POLICY: NO VIDEO RECORDINGS????

noreply@blogger.com (Artist3d) — Wed, 22 Jun 2011 15:58:00 +0000

This would be ridiculous if it were true but apparently one of the Islands Trustees supposedly tried to float a new policy on behalf of the Harbour House of 'no video taping' (UNTRUE according to the manager) in an attempt to yet again shut down public recording of events at a publically funded meeting over the contentious RARs. Oddly enough the event was cancelled and rescheduled for ArtSpring due to the incredible mass of public agitation and interest that extends far and wide even to those of us who avoid meetings to keep our blood pressure down. ;-)

It never ceases to amaze me how thick our current Trustees are in understanding that public meetings funded by the public are inherently PUBLIC and even people who attend imagining that they are not in the public eye. Trust meetings are not their own private club.

I would suggest that if everyone came to the June 22nd meeting Wednesday with a recording device of some kind, it would not only help spread any news that might be conveyed wider but help very much in showing the Islands Trust who is boss and who pays for this little charade of ill-begotten NDP legislation that continues to echo down through the timeline from those far away hallucinogenic 70s.