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. :(
Bravo, the reporting made it look like only $4000 when it is close to $50,000 and done repeatedly, probably to slip under the radar. For Linda Adams to suggest a mistake is more cover up.
ReplyDeleteHere's an extract from the Climate Action Council Bylaws. Trustees wrote these to indemnify themselves against their own CRIMINAL action. I wonder what they had in mind?
ReplyDeleteSubject to the provisions of the Society Act, the directors may cause the society to indemnify a director or former director of the society and the heirs and personal representatives of any such person, against all costs, charges and expenses, including an amount paid to settle an action or satisfy a judgment, actually and reasonably incurred including an amount paid to settle an action or satisfy a judgment in a civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding to which that person is made a party by reason of being or having been a director of or a former director including any action or proceeding brought by the society or any such corporation. Each director of the society on being appointed shall be deemed to have contracted with the society on the terms of the foregoing indemnity. (2) Subject to the provisions of the Society Act, the directors may cause the society to indemnify any officer, employee or agent of the society and the heirs and personal representatives against all costs, charges and expenses whatsoever incurred and resulting from acting as an officer, employee or agent of the society or such corporation. In addition, the society shall indemnify the secretary and the heirs and personal representatives of the secretary against all costs, charges and expenses whatsoever incurred and arising out of the functions assigned to the secretary by the Society Act or these bylaws. Each such secretary on being appointed shall be deemed to have contracted with the society on the terms of the foregoing indemnity. (3) For the purposes of bylaw 61(1) a civil, criminal or administrative action or proceeding shall include a civil, criminal, administrative or other investigation or inquiry the subject of which concerns the acts or conduct of the director or former director of the society while a director of the society. (4) The failure of a director or officer of the society to comply with the provisions of the Society Act, the constitution of the society or these bylaws shall not invalidate any indemnity to which they are entitled under this part.
Well they have certainly been well funded enough to protect themselves with our taxes and those clauses nicely in place!
ReplyDeleteSuspicion arises at the recent formation of these societies so close to the Trustees announcing their intentions not to run in the 2011 election as well as the fact that such new societies would so quickly become eligible for grants without any proven track record for producing results.
It reeks with conflict of interest and the appearance of collusion within a closed knit group of people who appear to have been gaming the system for quite some time.
Our best hope is that the courts follow this through a much deeper investigation particularly if our elected officials stick to their 'did-not-know' strategy.
Afterall, if they really think they 'did-not-know' the regulations regarding conflict of interest then it certainly calls into question all the financial decisions they have made during their time in office. It red flags a warning to the community that this may just be the tip of an iceberg regarding funding improprieties throughout the Trust region.
I feel sorry for Trust Council chair Shiela Malcolmson if she was indeed unaware of what she was authorizing in a conflict vote of this nature.
Trust Council needs to step up and make a clear statement that Trustees will not be allowed to continue in their capacity as Trustees if they are seen to be funding their own organizations without declaring their conflict of interest.
Otherwise, I think we can assume the Islands Trust is a lost and broken Trust.